Yes, I implemented the proposed solution in the new OJB store available from CVS head. The OJB store is meant to replace the RDBMS stores but it's not finished yet, the content store bit is not done. If you want to test it and verify that solves the problem, you can combine it with the txfile store, for instance: use txfile for content and OJB for the rest, a sample Domain.xml file is available in src/conf/ojb. The database schema of the OJB store is not exactly the same as the current RDBMS stores so part of the work is to write some migration tool as well. That needs to be done also.

I'll be working on finishing the OJB content store implementation but progress is slow since I have a very busy schedule at work right now.

Carlos

Luke Noel-Storr wrote:
Hi,

I was just wondering if you'd made any progress with this?

I've come up against this problem again now we are using a database backed version of Slide again, and it would be great if a solution was in the pipeline.

It's certainly a design flaw as it is, and I can no longer make the fields in my database bigger (which just puts off the problem anyway) without changing them to blobs (which will also require a code change).


Cheers

Luke.
-----



Carlos Villegas wrote:

Ok. I'll work on it. I'm quite busy at work but I'll make some time for this.

Carlos

James Mason wrote:

Carlos,

This seems valuable to me as well. Multivalue properties are a bit of a pain to work with right now.

-James

Warwick Burrows wrote:

Hi Carlos,

I definitely think its worth it. How were you thinking of indexing this
second table? The way to uniquely identify any individual property in the
property table seems to require 3 fields -- property namespace, property
name and version id? That would indicate that any table you create would
need all three of these as the primary key?


Warwick


-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos Villegas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 8:40 PM
To: Slide Users Mailing List
Subject: Re: max revision limit?





Warwick Burrows wrote:

Yes, but how much bigger? :-) It seems to be a flaw in the design that there is a version property that constantly grows in length with each new version added. Is this the way the spec defined the value of this property, or is this just Slide's implementation?





It seems to me it's a design flaw.

There are several properties that are a list of values like history and
group-member-set. I was thinking of adding a type identifier field to the
properties table and storing the individual values in a different table, one
per row. That's the usual relational db solution to this problem.


BTW, there's a property_type field in the properties table and the Java
object also has this field, but it doesn't seem to be used. Is it used at
all? If is not can we use it for this purpose?


I volunteer to try to fix at least one of the database stores using this
technique if anybody thinks it's worth it.


Carlos

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]



--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]



Reply via email to