Mailing-List: contact oak-dev-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of chetan.mehrotra@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.214.175 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CF58540D.5908E%mueller@adobe.com>
References: <CF58540D.5908E%mueller@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 15:39:42 +0530
Message-ID: 
 <CAHCW-m=A12s9fH=zAbb81ZcjZ_wJ3KvJraH5iDbOH6b=TO_2nw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Request for feedback: OSGi Configuration for Query Limits
 (OAK-1571)
From: Chetan Mehrotra <chetan.mehrotra@gmail.com>
To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Patch looks fine to me. Probably we can collapse QueryIndexProvider
and QueryEngineSettings into a single QueryEngineContext and pass that
along till Root.

> So: is it worth it to have the 100 KB source code overhead just to make t=
hings configurable separately for each Oak instance?
I think there are couple of benefits
* Isolation between multiple oak instance running on same jvm (minor)

* It opens up possibility to have session specific settings. So later
we require say JR2
  compatible behaviour case for some session then those settings can
be overlayed with
  session attributes

* it allows to change the setting at runtime via gui as some of these
settings would not
   require repository restart and can effect the next query that gets
executed. That would
  be a major win

So this effort now would enable incremental improvements in
QueryEngine in future!

> The Whiteboard is per Oak instance, right?
For OSGi case yes
Chetan Mehrotra


On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Thomas Mueller <mueller@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to make some query settings (limits on the number of nodes rea=
d) configurable via OSGi. So far, I have a patch of about 100 KB, and this =
is just wiring together the components (no OSGi / Whiteboard so far).
>
> I wonder, is there an easier way to do it? With system properties, it's j=
ust a few lines of code. The disadvantage is that all Oak instances in the =
same JVM use the same settings, but with OSGi configuration I guess in real=
ity it's not much different. So: is it worth it to have the 100 KB source c=
ode overhead just to make things configurable separately for each Oak insta=
nce? If not, how could it be implemented? The Whiteboard is per Oak instanc=
e, right?
>
> Regards,
> Thomas
>
>