I can think of four alternatives for db support in james: town, jdbc,
avalon, turbine.
1) Stick with town.
Pros: (per serge) Abstraction across multiple drivers, simpler than
JDBC, connection pooling
Cons: (serge) forces message instantiation
(charles) how active is the town community?
2) Straight JDBC
Pros: probably widest community, maximum flexibility
Cons: need multiple drivers, need connection pooling, requires
lower-level coding
3) Avalon (jakarta)
Pros: provides pooled connections,
Cons: don't know much about this, possibly limited community at
present (Avalon & cocoon)
4) Turbine (jakarta)
Pros: provides pooled connections, Peer object (OR mapping)
Cons: don't know a lot about this, either!
The advantage to Turbine or Jakarta is that they provide more
functionality than plan jdbc but, I guess, with more support than town.
Thoughts?
Charles
Serge Knystautas wrote:
>
> Steve,
>
> I really have had no time to do anything for the JAMES project. I think
> moving from Town to JDBC is good option because Town instantiates a blob
> completely (the MimeMessage), while with JDBC we could get the blob as a
> stream. This would potentially halve the memory requirements when
> processing a message (and accordingly speed things up)...Town takes the blob
> and gives you a byte[], then this gets streamed to the constructor of a
> MimeMessage. If we used JDBC, we could get the stream directly and get rid
> of the intermediate byte[].
>
> I think there were other issues as well, but this sticks out at me as the
> biggest issue. The nice parts of Town for James in my mind is the built-in
> connection pooling, the simpler code (although most people won't understand
> it as easily as they would JDBC), and the abstraction across multiple JDBC
> drivers (since there seem to be variations that might cause incompatibility,
> or require us to hardcode so support).
>
> Sorry, I'd like to say I have something to report, but again, I just don't
> have any time these days.
>
> Serge Knystautas
> Loki Technologies
> http://www.lokitech.com/
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Crossan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 5:44 AM
> Subject: Town replacement
>
> > Serge
> >
> > You spoke quite recently about wanting to replace the Town DB interface
> > with some custom written jdbc to improve performance. Do you have any more
> > info about progress on this? Would an alternative be to work on the Town
> > code to try and improve it's performance - since it has some great
> > features (esp. the ORMapping).
> >
> > thanks
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
