On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Thomas Müller <[email protected]> wrote: > I think the storage API should support some kind of "storage session" > (normally one storage session for each JCR session). For a relational > database, such a session could map to a database connection.
I think the session.save() should be transactional and bounded to storage transactional control API if available. In this case jdbc connection transaction. Because jdbc transaction has different isolation level, it may not safe to share the connections between jcr sessions. Any one see the problem/drawback to use a connections pool and use a jdbc connection per jcr session? > features for a new "default" high-performance (excuse me for that > term) persistence implementation (eg. what indexes to use, transaction I am not too much concern with the performance if it's not terrible bad compare with what we have now. That's the price we paid for the feature we got. User may look for other technology to meet their performance if it's a problem. -Guo
