Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 26C2C9F3F for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 00:04:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 72543 invoked by uid 500); 4 Sep 2012 00:04:53 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@jackrabbit.apache.org Received: (qmail 72475 invoked by uid 500); 4 Sep 2012 00:04:53 -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 72462 invoked by uid 99); 4 Sep 2012 00:04:52 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Sep 2012 00:04:52 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of esmond.pitt@bigpond.com designates 61.9.189.140 as permitted sender) Received: from [61.9.189.140] (HELO nschwmtas02p.mx.bigpond.com) (61.9.189.140) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Sep 2012 00:04:43 +0000 Received: from nschwcmgw09p ([61.9.190.169]) by nschwmtas02p.mx.bigpond.com with ESMTP id <20120904000419.OLCA22122.nschwmtas02p.mx.bigpond.com@nschwcmgw09p> for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 00:04:19 +0000 Received: from HP6910P ([120.151.14.51]) by nschwcmgw09p with BigPond Outbound id uo4K1j00J165irc01o4K9M; Tue, 04 Sep 2012 00:04:19 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=HORB5/Rv c=1 sm=1 a=4u9tzJkkMcV5r5ibEi6r6w==:17 a=dGqrr0z5SR4A:10 a=JDadKst33uMA:10 a=1IlZJK9HAAAA:8 a=dk4DuYJvSYAA:10 a=SAAKz5G-dJ4A:10 a=Y96x3SvDvEgA:10 a=-Gksq1F04_AA:10 a=JEizuGu11VsA:10 a=YXDAJP4SPwYA:10 a=iS_6K2huOhkA:10 a=OPXh5Bir3FwA:10 a=3kDkrE77ovYA:10 a=pVOJSCQFZcAA:10 a=hVS76gjeR8gA:10 a=iDBLD2MuuZMA:10 a=RPA9Usc2EJwzSrgvyVsA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=i72yBolDamZ3c7QhEJAA:9 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=4u9tzJkkMcV5r5ibEi6r6w==:117 From: "Esmond Pitt" To: References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Deployment question: is Jackrabbit process-safe? Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 10:04:12 +1000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0040_01CD8A84.A24799D0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.1.7601.17609 thread-index: Ac2GemzYUyrCLi+/RT6a9xn2uczdbQDthmHQ ------=_NextPart_000_0040_01CD8A84.A24799D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have a clustered web-app that uses Jackrabbit. I presently have Jackrabbit in yet another Tomcat and am using RMI to communicate with it. However it occurs to me that I could just include the JackRabbit API jars in the webapp and call it directly, *provided* multiple copies of the Jackrabbit API will co-operate correctly on the database. Is this the case? EJP ------=_NextPart_000_0040_01CD8A84.A24799D0--