I agree with Felix. JCR-RMI definitely has it drawbacks (perf is HORRIBLE). However, it is easy to use and until the dav based communications is at least as easy, JCR-RMI should not be dropped.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Felix Meschberger" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 10:58:19 AM GMT -07:00 U.S. Mountain Time (Arizona) Subject: Re: Remoting and future of JCR-RMI Hi, At first sight, I would say nay ;-) Because, the RMI stuff is easy and simple to use and just works. Period. Now, on the other hand the RMI stuff has some serious drawbacks: * Performance (we never really built caching into it, which would be hard anyways) * Secondary communications channel besides HTTP * Classloading issues * .. and all the other problems related to RMI Therefore, I agree with this proposal, all the more, that hopefully, setting up a dav based communications channel supporting the complete API (this would be a requirement for me for dropping RMI !) is as easy and straightforward. Regards Felix Jukka Zitting schrieb: > Hi, > > So far I've just assumed that, since JCR 2.0 is backwards compatible > with JCR 1.0, we'll have no trouble using the JCR-RMI layer on top of > a JCR 2.0 repository even if the layer itself is still built against > JCR 1.0. > > Unfortunately, now that I looked at this in more detail, my assumption > turns out to be false. Since the JCR-RMI layer acts both as a JCR > client and a server it's not possible for one end to use JCR 1.0 while > the other uses JCR 2.0. Furthermore the remote interfaces and objects > passed through RMI include javax.jcr.RepositoryException and a > serializable javax.jcr.Value implementation, so even just splitting > the JCR-RMI layer to separate client and server parts will not solve > the problem. > > With enough work we could solve both of the above issues to make > JCR-RMI work with all combinations of JCR 1.0 and 2.0 clients and > servers. However I'm not convinced that it makes sense to spend all > that effort when we now have the WebDAV-based remoting layer that's > already pretty feature-rich. > > So I'm thinking of putting JCR-RMI on a maintenance track for old 1.x > releases, and perhaps even dropping the RMI layer entirely from > Jackrabbit 2.0. > > WDYT? > > BR, > > Jukka Zitting >
