On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 1:11 AM, Ian Boston <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 14 Sep 2010, at 21:14, Ard Schrijvers wrote: > >> Current jackrabbit lucene architecture also doesn't fit something like >> infinispan LuceneDirectory (it needs a reopen() on every call), which >> would be a very nice thing to be able to use. Anyway, tons of ideas I >> have, all I need is some (much) time :-((( > > > Ard, > This might be dangerous talk, > Since Infinispan covers both distributed caching and on top of that the > management of Lucene indexing, how hard do you think it would be to replace > all of the areas the Journal processing touches with Infinispan?
As far as it is concerned with Lucene, we wouldn't need anything like a journal any more (I think the journal is also used for cache eviction, that would then be the use case for it only I guess though i am on thin ice here as it is not my expertise): Every node gets a clustered in memory Lucene index. Currently, the jackrabbit Lucene architecture is not compatible with this however. Also, the Lucene indexes become way to big (at the moment). > I have a suspicion that Jackrabbit use of the lucene index may write too > often for the Infinispan implementation to work, however thats just a > suspicion, nothing more. How often is written I don't suspect it to be an issue for infinispan: Infinispan has a LuceneDirectory build on top of it. I think they target environments with many more writes then Jackrabbit usage on average does. I recently talked to an active infinispan contributor who is also a Hibernate Search contributor, making use of infinispan in a clustered hibernate solution: their usecase is very much alike jackrabbit's. Anyway, for this to be possible, we would need to do quite some reshuffling in the existing Lucene...starting with reopen() a single index reader for every request instead of the current logic with many index readers which are kept open forever. More about this at some later point, I really hope I can move time into this area. Not this year any more I think however :-( Regards Ard > Ian
