John Merrells wrote:
Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
> Nice to see you here, John. :-)
I'm spying on you ;-)
So am I on the other side, we are even. ;-)
> Af fo transaction, sorry, let me rephrase it better, I didn't make > myself clear: if you want ACID then you need transactions for > operations that modify the database. But on a mostly-read database the > transaction code might well be slow, since you are not doing many > writes. So, even if JTA might impose a performance penalty, if the > model is mostly read then it might be worth using that in the > immediate future. Does this sound better?
The reads performance difference between a transacted store and an
untransacted store
should be very small.
Which is exactly my point: transactions should not impose a severe performance hit on read operations. I don't know why, but we keep saying the same thing. :-)
I don't know much about JTA... but I thought it was an interface for distributed transactions? XA for Java?
Neither do I. I'm scratching the surface as of now.
DB XML is released under the same license as Berkeley DB. Basically, if you're open source then we're open source, if you're proprietary then you need to buy a license. We have alpha code available if anyone wants to play :-)
I've been actively playing for a while, and so far so good. :-) I will seriously consider using bdbxml as a possible backend (though it would break the cross-platform compatibility, but still it's worth a tought).
Ciao,
-- Gianugo Rabellino
