Merged RDBMS store

Hi! I have just committed the initial proposal for the merged RBDMS store into the proposal section of the CVS. It should work with the current ACL-12 implementation, although no extensive testing has been done yet. To sum things up: - Adapter concept has been taken over from the work

RE: Merged RDBMS store

index built on the url string would work much better and be less costly to maintain overall... Cheers Andy -Original Message- From: Oliver Zeigermann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 14 November 2003 12:27 To: Slide Developers Mailing List Subject: Merged RDBMS store Hi! I have just

Re: Merged RDBMS store

will be worth this price. Daniel Cheers Andy -Original Message- From: Oliver Zeigermann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 14 November 2003 12:27 To: Slide Developers Mailing List Subject: Merged RDBMS store Hi! I have just committed the initial proposal for the merged RBDMS store

Re: Merged RDBMS store

Cheers Andy -Original Message- From: Oliver Zeigermann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 14 November 2003 12:27 To: Slide Developers Mailing List Subject: Merged RDBMS store Hi! I have just committed the initial proposal for the merged RBDMS store

RE: Merged RDBMS store

On top of that, if you are indexing the url string field (which I think would be reasonable if you had a lot of entries in the repository) then the db will be rebuilding that index for each redundant url several times over... though this probably isn't as frequent an occurrence as a

RE: Merged RDBMS store

I tend to think that a CMS should *NOT* serve content straight from the content repository, exactly for the reasons above: it's hard to optimize it for that! I agree entirely! The best (IMHO) architectural solutions for this is to have something like frontend --- repository

Re: Merged RDBMS store

Am Freitag, 14. November 2003 16:46 schrieb Andy Redhead: I tend to think that a CMS should *NOT* serve content straight from the content repository, exactly for the reasons above: it's hard to optimize it for that! I agree entirely! The best (IMHO) architectural solutions for this is

Re: Merged RDBMS store

On 14 Nov 2003, at 16:46, Andy Redhead wrote: I tend to think that a CMS should *NOT* serve content straight from the content repository, exactly for the reasons above: it's hard to optimize it for that! I agree entirely! The best (IMHO) architectural solutions for this is to have something

RE: Merged RDBMS store

I agree that the store should not be able to deliver the content in a speed that is required for composing webpages in realtime. So we should leave the tables more or less as they are. The performance issue should be done after fixing all the bugs :-) Good call :) Thanks Andy

Re: Merged RDBMS store

On 14 Nov 2003, at 17:19, Daniel Florey wrote: Am Freitag, 14. November 2003 16:46 schrieb Andy Redhead: I tend to think that a CMS should *NOT* serve content straight from the content repository, exactly for the reasons above: it's hard to optimize it for that! I agree entirely! The best