----- Original Message ----- From: "James Bates" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 5:52 AM Subject: RE: [2.0] Shaking up the tree
> I think the current names are fine actually... the server contains only server code, core contains > the database whether used by a server, or directly by the embed driver, and client contains > code to -generically access the server, and package this server access through XML:DB or possibly other means (tb determined later)... > > As for the embed driver, it allows embedded access to Xindice, it seems right to me also. I agree with James on the current names. > I would however wish to look at optimizing some of the internal workings. > > For example: > > 1) there's a complete B-Tree implementation, and XML documents are in fact trees, but are stored simply as byte arrays... Why not store NODES in the B-Tree, allowing much more clever indexing > > 2) Xindice internally handles all XUpdates, Queries, everything by completely loading an XML document into an in-core DOM object model. Storing nodes in stead of documents would also allow this to be far more optimized. In particular, XUpdate's could TRULY update the db, in stead of reading a DOM, modifying and writing a complete document back. > > 3) Introduce some transaction and failover support; don't know where yet: the pages of the Paged >file? complete B-Tree's ? documents in collections? This makes sense to me, but I know nothing about B-Tree :-) I'll take a look at the internals documentation that you have been working on and try to familiarize myself with the way Xindice performs things on the core level. Then maybe I can help out. Kurt
