On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 11:04:20 -0300, Edgar Poce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi stefan > > >>1 - referencial integrity > > > > > > referential integrity is taken care of by the repository. it's not a > > task of the persistence manager. > > > I think it's not a problem in controlled deployments where the developer > or a support team is in charge, but there are many situations where it's > not the case, and if the repository turns unusable it's a problem both > for the client and the company that sold the product. Given the fact > that if the jvm is killed the repository might turn inconsistent I'd > rather use a persistence storage that checks referencial integrity. > > >>3 - not duplicated data > > > > > > again, that's taken care of by the repository. > With high load and a networked deployment (usually together) unnecesary > bytes would bother the network. There are cases when this situation can > not be easily fixed, but in this case the PM can easily chose to ignore > some store calls, e.g. all NodeReferences and only the primaryType > PropertyState. Actually, as Tobias pointed, the versioning part choses > not to pass the primary type as a PropertyState in the ChangeLog, I > guess the same can be done easily in the PM.
i disagree. in fact that's exactly what a PM is *not* supposed to do. jackrabbit was not designed to accomodate *smart* PMs. cheers stefan > > regards > edgar > > > > > > > cheers > > stefan > > >
