jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thomas Mueller <muel...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: [jr3] Tree model
Date Mon, 05 Mar 2012 13:02:56 GMT

>>I'm not sure this is really about the cost. I rather have concerns
>> about contention and conflicts in the distributed case.
>That's a part of the cost I was thinking of. This clearly is a
>significant design decision to make, which is why I'd hope to see some
>actual numbers to back us (it would have been great if the existing
>prototypes had already provided such detail).

I agree, numbers would be good. I felt a negative (sometimes hostile)
attitude towards benchmarks so far. I fear no matter what the numbers are,
they would be declined on the basis of that they are not relevant.

>Alternatively, we could
>leave the orderability issue undefined for now, and revisit the
>decision once we have a better idea of what works and what doesn't.

Yes, I would leave it undefined. I don't think it will or should hold us

>I think it would be useful to tie orderability and
>SNSs together, as any code that implements SNSs should fairly easily
>be able to give us orderability as well.

I don't think that they are (or should be) tied together that much.

>Thus I think it would be a
>good solution to implement both either below or above the MK level.
>Splitting the features across the MK line doesn't seem that useful.

I view them as distinct features actually.


View raw message