I did some tests removing synchronized blocks from BundleDbPersistenceManager and AbstractBundlePersistenceManager and all went fine, but I think thorough testing is needed in this field.
I would also like to see jackrabbit doing concurrent writes at its core, delegating the lock management to the PersistenceManager implementation. A BundleDbPersistenceManager could possibly offer concurrent writes whereas a file based persistence manager might do one write at a time. Best regards, On 04/06/07, Marcel Reutegger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Rafał, Rafał Kwiecień wrote: > Ok.So, how long it can take? 2 or 3 months? half year ? > It is important to me to know when this feature will be available. jackrabbit is an open source project and does not have a fixed road map nor detailed release plan. if such a feature is important to you, you are very welcome to participate. afaics the following steps are required to be able to support concurrent writes: - implement a ISMLocking that supports multiple write locks at a time - extend an existing or create a new persistence manager to support concurrent writes - make sure the jackrabbit core is able to handle concurrent writes. e.g. check if caches are synchronized properly. - optionally: enhance the search handler implementation to support concurrent writes. (this is not a hard requirement because when jackrabbit indexes content the write lock had been downgraded to a read lock) > I use BundlePersistenceManager. Methods in that persistence manager are > synchronized. So, there is not possible to read anything during write. can you please file a jira issue about this and if possible attach a patch? thanks. > BTW. If I use FineGrainedISMLocking, sometimes I see a warning in logs: > WARN [.core.query.lucene.SearchIndex] Exception while creating document for > node: aad7aa6a-5baf-4a33-b88d-f39f713aad1a: javax.jcr.RepositoryException: > Missing child node entry for node with id: > aad7aa6a-5baf-4a33-b88d-f39f713aad1a > Does it mean that some node has not been indexed ? > When I use DefaultISMLocking, I don't get warnings. please note that FineGrainedISMLocking is work in progress. there are some implications when using this class that need to be resolved first before it can be used. e.g. access to caches are not properly synchronized when using FineGrainedISMLocking. regards marcel
-- Miguel.
