Hi Andreas,
On 11/17/06, Andreas Hartmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Jackrabbit community,
can Jackrabit be used to implement the following scenario?
- Bea WebLogic as application server
- Cluster, each instance has read+write access to the repository
- Transactions must be supported
Yes, Jackrabbit contains a JCA contribution that also features
deployment descriptors for BEA WebLogic. Recently, clustering support
has been added to jackrabbit, though it might not yet be feature
complete.
I'm not quite sure how to understand the transaction support.
The persistence manager overview states that some of the
persistence managers are transactional. Can I just choose one
of them, or are there differences re. the transactional behavior?
Transactions inside Jackrabbit are handled by buffering changes to an
internal change log. When a transaction is committed, all these
changes are atomically written to the underlying PM.
Do I understand it correctly that the PM has to be JDBC-based to
ensure atomic storage of changes?
Yes, the file-system based PMs do not write change logs atomically.
OTOH, do I still need transaction support facilities of the
application server?
If you only need local transactions, you might control transactions
inside Jackrabbit manually by calling the individual XAResource
methods exposed by Jackrabbit's XASession.
Which deployment model would be appropriate?
Does the model 3 apply to clusters, or would the repository
clustering be implemented in the back-end (DB cluster)?
Clustering inside Jackrabbit requires a shared back-end, e.g. a DB
running standalone. Yet, there is still some information that every
node in the cluster stores locally, e.g. the search index, map of
locked nodes, etc.
Would it be possible to scale the repository back-end and the
application layer independently from each other?
Sorry, could you clarify this?
Cheers
Dominique
