Ole, On 4/5/07, Ole Ersoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, It does make life simpler when there's one simple rule like that :-) It's also a little easier to visually track everything like that. Although now instead of just having an attribute name on an entry like "baseDN" we have to call it: org.apache.tuscany.DASConfig.baseDN
Yep qualify it. Many schemas usually have some prefix to their schema entity names. It makes life easier. I assume this does not really matter that much,
because I'm guessing that even though we have 200,000,000 entries with the ObjectClass DASConfig, org.apache.tuscany.DASConfig.baseDN is not repeated 200,000,000 for each entry. It's only stored on the ObjectClass right?
throw new ParserException( "Unable to comprehend exactly what your concern is can you elaborate?" ); So the only additional storage incurred is from the values of the entries? Hmmmm let me see ... you have an objectClass defined right? It has some name like xyz and you're asking me what the storage cost is when you have 200M xyz entries in the server of that objectClass? You would have used ~1200Mb of disk just to identify those entries as xyz objects each costing say 6 bytes because each entry has an objectClass attribute with the value xyz. Does this answer your question? Alex
