I get this with global observation, but we're now talking about observation usage patterns and replacing them with queries. And these usage patterns are usually only observing partial parts of the repository.
Carsten 2013/10/23 Ian Boston <[email protected]> > On 23 October 2013 11:25, Carsten Ziegeler <[email protected]> wrote: > > So you mean instead of doing observation, doing a query periodically? > > This would mean that we basically say, one of the main features of JCR, > > observation, is not usable. > > Past experience says that global observation of all changes in a > cluster is not usable, and is best replaced by application specific > messaging over a channel designed to scale. > > JCR Observation works just fine in the same memory space but beyond > that it is far too noisy for a repository performing write operations. > > Ian > > > > > > Carsten > > > > > > 2013/10/23 Bertrand Delacretaz <[email protected]> > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <[email protected] > > > >> wrote: > >> > ...The mapping handler in the resource resolver is probably the most > >> > interesting one as it changes for nodes with some well defined > >> properties, > >> > basically scanning the whole repository... > >> > >> This is one example where latency is not a problem, so periodic > >> queries could be used instead of observation if that's more scalable. > >> We're basically interested in whether anything changed in the results > >> of a query since we last ran it, a pattern which might be optimized in > >> Oak by taking advantage of the underlying MVCC storage. > >> > >> -Bertrand > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Carsten Ziegeler > > [email protected] > -- Carsten Ziegeler [email protected]
