On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 2:44 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 2/3/12 10:51 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote: > >> This is a really bold move here Emmanuel. The txn branch is not even alpha >> and a serious change that will effect the server. I thought this was >> something we would slowly start to transition into the main branch of >> development. >> >> I don't know if it should require a vote but maybe we should talk about >> this a little bit no? >> >> Point to the modified version of JDBM. >> > > Sure. let me explain why I did that move, and why it's not critical. > > Having a MVCC backend could allow us to solve the problem we have with > concurrent modifications and searches. We don't necessarily need to have > the full in-memory MVCC Selcuk is working on in its branch in order to > benefit from part of what he already have done : if we protect the > modifications in the jdbm-partition against concurrent access to the > backend, then searches and modifications could probably safely be executed > concurrently. > > I need to test this part, and I don't want to do that in a branch, because > it's too much a pain to merge it back while we are fixing many other issues > in the server. > > Hopefully, this move is just impacting three poms and reverting back to > jdbm is just a matter to point back to the previous version : just a breeze. > > I should have told the list about this change before doing it, my bad. > Sadly, I made a mistake and had to commit the modifications in the poms > because I broke the trunk this morning with a partial commit. This is why > we now point to jdbm2. This can easily be fixed, and we can safely revert > to jdbm. > > -- > Regards, > Cordialement, > Emmanuel Lécharny > www.iktek.com > > Thanks for clarifying and giving a thorough explanation. I was just surprised to see the move and wanted your thoughts. -- Best Regards, -- Alex
