From users-return-15600-apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive=jackrabbit.apache.org@jackrabbit.apache.org Thu Jul 15 12:08:57 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: (qmail 81257 invoked from network); 15 Jul 2010 12:08:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 15 Jul 2010 12:08:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 27116 invoked by uid 500); 15 Jul 2010 12:08:56 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@jackrabbit.apache.org Received: (qmail 26846 invoked by uid 500); 15 Jul 2010 12:08:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@jackrabbit.apache.org Received: (qmail 26837 invoked by uid 99); 15 Jul 2010 12:08:53 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 12:08:53 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of gcaju-users@m.gmane.org designates 80.91.229.12 as permitted sender) Received: from [80.91.229.12] (HELO lo.gmane.org) (80.91.229.12) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 12:08:44 +0000 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OZNEk-0001yb-Ez for users@jackrabbit.apache.org; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 14:08:22 +0200 Received: from mail.gateway.shenick.com ([62.77.176.130]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 14:08:22 +0200 Received: from Marc.Herbert by mail.gateway.shenick.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 14:08:22 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org From: Marc Herbert Subject: Re: SPI versus RMI versus... SPI+RMI Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:08:07 +0100 Lines: 34 Message-ID: References: <4C3D94E2.8000100@day.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: mail.gateway.shenick.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100430 Fedora/3.0.4-2.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.4 In-Reply-To: <4C3D94E2.8000100@day.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Le 14/07/2010 11:43, Angela Schreiber a =C3=A9crit : >> i agree, remoting the SPI using RMI should be straightforward, >> e.g. >> jcr2spi <-> SPI RMI client stub <-(network)-> SPI RMI server <-> spi= 2jcr >> >> AFAIK, nobody's implemented yet. >=20 > marcel did, didn't he? > -> it's in the jackrabbit sandbox but not updated to the JR 2.0. Stefan, Angela: thanks for answering. Coming back to performance, would this "third" remoting solution be usable over WAN latency? (unlike plain RMI). I mean would calls be batched somehow? This specific quote got me wondering: "While Jackrabbit SPI to JCR and SPI to WebDAV really are repository implementations, the SPI-RMI is rather a 'repeater' for SPI calls using RMI" http://jackrabbit.apache.org/jackrabbit-spi.html > and it's not optimized as far as i know. Could you elaborate a tiny bit? The email archives would be grateful to you :-) Cheers, Marc