Hi, On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Ian Boston <i...@tfd.co.uk> wrote: > On 17 Feb 2010, at 10:43, Jukka Zitting wrote: >> I'm not aware of anything like that, though there's been some >> discussion about persistence on top of distributed databases or hash >> tables. The main problem with such approaches is the eventual >> consistency model that can be troublesome for the current Jackrabbit >> architecture. > > Is that because, in a cluster one JR node might get an event that an > Item exists, but its not yet present on the backend its connected to, > and there are no guarantees over the order in which items appear, > so, for instance, the hierarchy manager might find a child but not > the parent?
Exactly. The current Jackrabbit architecture assumes that the underlying persistence store is always (not just eventually) consistent. > Do you have any pointers to the discussions so I can go and read ? It's been mostly coffee room discussions so far, but I'll bring up the topic soon on dev@ as a part of a larger Jackrabbit 3 roadmap discussion. BR, Jukka Zitting