Hi Muhammed, Can you go into more depth about these:
>>>>>> 1) Sharding support 2) Selectable seeding model. <<<<<< Thanks, Karl On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Karl Wright <[email protected]> wrote: > bq. What is "non-SQL data store" ? You mean to remove MFC's dependency to > PostgreSQL, MySQL, Derby etc? > > See CONNECTORS-286. > > bq. What do you think about this? Can MCF be dih replacement? How is our > DB crawler compared to DIH? > > In theory it could. I'd hesitate before claiming feature-to-feature > compatibility though, and I'm not sure whether Solr people would officially > recommend MCF in any case, especially since they have wanted to solve > document security in their own way (but have never gotten around to it in > the 3+ years this first came to my attention). > > Karl > > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Ahmet Arslan <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> What is "non-SQL data store" ? You mean to remove MFC's dependency to >> PostgreSQL, MySQL, Derby etc? >> >> >> By the way solr guys are looking for a Data Import Handler (DIH) >> replacement. >> >> See for the thread : http://search-lucene.com/m/WwzTb2z1w7F >> >> DIH is mostly used to sync RDBMS to Solr. >> >> What do you think about this? Can MCF be dih replacement? >> >> How is our DB crawler compared to DIH? >> >> Ahmet >> >> >> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 11:33 PM, Muhammed Olgun <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I think that a non-SQL solution would be great. I have also two new ideas >> for GridFS connector, >> >> 1) Sharding support >> 2) Selectable seeding model. >> >> Muhammed >> >> >> >> >> >> On 18 Jun 2014, at 23:22, Karl Wright <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Hi Piergiorgio, >> > >> > Just to clarify -- I don't have a workable plan yet for a non-SQL data >> > store, so maybe that waits until 3.0. >> > >> > Karl >> > >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Piergiorgio Lucidi < >> [email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> +1 from me for breaking backwords compatibility and focusing on non-SQL >> >> data store. >> >> >> >> Piergiorgio >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014-06-18 18:19 GMT+02:00 Karl Wright <[email protected]>: >> >> >> >>> Hi all, >> >>> >> >>> By now it is becoming clear that ManifoldCF has accumulated a lot of >> >>> backwards-compatibility dead weight we have to carry around from >> release >> >> to >> >>> release. However, ManifoldCF 2.0 will present an opportunity to break >> >>> backwards compatibility with the 1.x releases. Originally, I was >> >> thinking >> >>> that MCF 2.0 would be the proper release vehicle for an >> implementation on >> >>> top of a non-SQL data store, but now I am looking at this instead as a >> >>> great way to clean out deprecated tabs, methods, and even whole >> >> connectors >> >>> from the codebase. >> >>> >> >>> I'd like to consider making the MCF 2.0 release be the next one after >> >> 1.7. >> >>> Since 1.7 is scheduled for end of August, 2.0 would come out some >> months >> >>> after that. Please comment on whether you agree with this basic >> plan, or >> >>> you have other priorities we should know about. ;-) >> >>> >> >>> FWIW, if this *is* a good idea to you, please also list one or two >> main >> >>> areas we should work on for 2.0 that involve breaking backwards >> >>> compatibility. >> >>> >> >>> Thanks, >> >>> Karl >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Piergiorgio Lucidi >> >>> Open Source ECM Specialist >> >>> http://www.open4dev.com >> >>> >> >> >> > >
