Mailing-List: contact dev-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of mueller@adobe.com designates
 64.18.1.39 as permitted sender)
From: Thomas Mueller <mueller@adobe.com>
To: "dev@jackrabbit.apache.org" <dev@jackrabbit.apache.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 11:29:42 +0000
Subject: Re: [jr3] Tree model
Thread-Topic: [jr3] Tree model
Thread-Index: Acz6w0RjVOZDHeKMRSmvctkaWIrXiw==
Message-ID: <CB7A6107.26D2F%mueller@adobe.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <9C0FC4C8E9C29945B01766FC7F9D389816E3CC94DD@eurmbx01.eur.adobe.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

Hi,

>I'm not sure this is really about the cost. I rather have concerns
>about contention and conflicts in the distributed case. in a
>distributed environment you can scale concurrent child node
>adds more easily when they are unordered. in the ordered case
>you will likely have clients that simply add nodes without
>explicit order information, which means they are all added to
>the end of the list, causing contention in this area.

I didn't think about this yet. Yes, it sounds like quite a big problem,
even for small child node lists. Even storing the order as a property on
the parent would be problematic in this case. And it would also be a
problem for a clustering solution with MongoDB (depending how data is
stored there).

Regards,
Thomas