jackrabbit-oak-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ate Douma <...@douma.nu>
Subject Re: Observation
Date Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:45:51 GMT
On 11/21/2013 07:18 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Ate Douma <ate@douma.nu> wrote:
>> On 11/11/2013 07:29 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>> Of course section 12.6.2 contradicts that by essentially giving the
>>> repository free reign to decide which (if any) events to include in
>>> the journal.
>>>
>> Far more problematic (broken really) is the fact that the spec. uses Dates
>> to access/order (skipTo) the events. Which is unreliable and useless in a
>> clustered environment. Meaning: unreliable for any serious use-case.
>
> Right. It only works for cases where the client won't mind seeing
> duplicate events at skip boundaries (and has a clock that's in sync
> with that of the repository).
>
>> I'm not following the current state of things at Oak enough to know if it
>> also will provide some kind of guaranteed orderable and cluster-wide
>> transaction revision/timestamp/whatever.
>
> We indeed do have that. It's possible for a client to "checkpoint" a
> repository at a specific revision and later get the exact set of
> changes between that checkpoint and any later state of the repository.
> For example the asynchronous index update task uses this feature to
> periodically update the index with changes that occurred between two
> checkpoints.

Good to hear, then we should be OK porting our functionality to Oak when that 
time comes :)

Thanks for the heads-up!

Ate

>
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
>


Mime
View raw message