jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From anton_slutsky <aslut...@applevac.com>
Subject Re: NodeTypeRegistry.checkForReferencesInContent()
Date Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:53:07 GMT

I agree, examining each node manually would be safer, but, like you said, it
probably wont scale performancewise. 

Concurrency is an issue.  I was thinking on setting a semaphore or a mutex
flag on the RepositoryImpl instance, but I was sure if it's possible to have
two RepositoryImpl instances working on the same physical repository.  From
what I've read so far, it doesnt appear that such a behavior is supported. 
If this can be confirmed to be a fact, the mutex solution should really do
the trick.

Please pardon the ignorance, but what is an improvement request, and where
can I file one? :-)


Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
> On 2/7/07, anton_slutsky <aslutsky@applevac.com> wrote:
>> So what do you guys think of my implementation?  I really hate to deploy
>> my
>> apps with customized code.  I'd rather have it out there with an
>> out-of-the-box jackrabbit.
> Looks cool, though I have some concerns.
> My main concern is about using search to find the node type
> references. Normally this shouldn't be a problem, but since the search
> index is a separate copy of the persisted content there is a chance of
> coherence issues. More notably the search engine is pluggable and in
> some cases it has been disabled alltogether. Using the actual item
> state and persistence managers to look for references would IMHO be
> safer, though as of now there are no access paths outside the search
> index that would perform reasonably.
> Another concern is concurrency. How can we make sure that there are no
> concurrent modifications going on that might introduce new references
> to the node type in question?
> I think your patch is a good starting point but we still need work to
> sort out all the relevant details. You may want to attach your patch
> to JCR-322 or file it as a separate improvement request. I'd also
> suggest that you take this thread to the developer mailing list.
> BR,
> Jukka Zitting

View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/NodeTypeRegistry.checkForReferencesInContent%28%29-tf2882955.html#a8847994
Sent from the Jackrabbit - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

View raw message