Hi, On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Alexander Klimetschek <aklim...@day.com> wrote: > I think a good idea (and I guess this is what you have in mind) would > be to have a lower-level persistence API that is journal/cluster-aware > and allows for all the basic node and property storage.
Agreed. The big question related to this is whether we should try to implement this layer ourselves or if we should rather look at existing solutions like clustered/distributed databases (either relational or NoSQL). The former would probably give us the best theoretical performance as we could design the low-level storage model around the content hierarchy, while the latter would save us years worth of work. Personally I think we should go with an existing solution and implement the JCR content hierarchy on top of that, just like we currently do with the JDBC-based persistence managers. Instead of relational databases, I'm especially interested in solutions like distributed hash tables (Project Voldemort, etc.) or databases (Cassandra, etc.) that are based on the idea of eventual consistency and offer an easy way to scale horizontally in a cloud environment. BR, Jukka Zitting
