hi all, i can appreciate both positions, looking at jackrabbit as the datastore or looking at jackrabbit as running on top of a datastore (rdbms).
personally, i don't believe that the latter perception will go away for quite a while, so i think jackrabbit should support both views. in my experience, i have seen really three different views so far: A: i want to store the entire repository in a relational database. this allows me to use hot backup and clustering of the database. B: i want to store all the "meta information" in the database but i also have those really large blobs (movies) that i don't trust the database with. C: i want it to be fast & reliable and easy to deploy and run in production. (does someone on the list not fall into these three options?) i think with the global datastore and the pm architecture jackrabbit is very flexible to offer options for all three views of the world. i think a good next step would be to explicitly support/document these three well defined persistence models and make it really easy for people to just pick and choose their favorite approach and run with an ootb config. regards, david .ps: of course i have a personal preference but i think my preference is well-known ;) On 8/20/07, Thomas Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > > management won't. > > political reasons. > > won't move to Jackrabbit *if* Jackrabbit cannot store it in oracle. > > I agree. My guess is about 50% of larger organizations want a > databases as the backend, even if databases are slower. So about 50% > don't really care. > > Thomas >
