Fine grained locking in 1.4 (Was: Jackrabbit 1.4 release plan)

[Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

On Dec 10, 2007 9:12 PM, Esteban Franqueiro <es...@bea.com> wrote:
> >> What about JCR-314, 935 (which you mentioned) and 1148, issues related with the
> >> fine grained locking? We've been testing the fix I proposed for JCR-1148 in the
> >> JCR-935 comments for some time now and haven't had any NPE due to it.
> >
> > I'm not sure how ready we are to switch to fine grained locking as the
> > default SISM locking strategy. From a feature perspective it would be
> > really nice, but I'm a bit worried about stability especially since we
> > finally seem to have overcome the infamous concurrent versioning
> > problems.
>
> I'm not saying it has to be the default, but it could be optional. I have a patch for 1.4 that adds
> a lockingStrategy attribute to the repository config (per repository), and it has a few tweaks in
> it. I can upload it for review. Our testing with 1.3.1 + FGL shows a tree-fold improvement, so I
> think it's worth to further develop this feature.

Agreed. I think we should do this, and look at resolving the issues
you mentioned for Jackrabbit 1.4. It sounds like things are stable
enough with your suggested fixes.

What do others think? If it's a configuration option, people can
always fall back to the current behaviour, and in case problems do
come up with FGL, we can always make 1.4.x patch releases to fix the
issues.

BR,

Jukka Zitting

Re: Fine grained locking in 1.4

[Esteban Franqueiro <es...@bea.com>]

> Let's do this. We already have a somewhat established practice of
> introducing new features like clustering (1.2) and bundle pms (1.3) in
> a release without making them the default until more real-world
> experience is gathered.

Sounds great.
And for 1.4 there's also the data store :)
Regards,

Esteban Franqueiro
esteban.franqueiro@bea.com

Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and  affiliated entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted  and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.

Re: Fine grained locking in 1.4 (Was: Jackrabbit 1.4 release plan)

[Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

On Dec 11, 2007 11:47 AM, Marcel Reutegger <ma...@gmx.net> wrote:
> unless we test it thoroughly until we release it we should definitively mark it
> as experimental and do *not* use it as the default.

Let's do this. We already have a somewhat established practice of
introducing new features like clustering (1.2) and bundle pms (1.3) in
a release without making them the default until more real-world
experience is gathered.

BR,

Jukka Zitting

Re: Fine grained locking in 1.4 (Was: Jackrabbit 1.4 release plan)

[Marcel Reutegger <ma...@gmx.net>]

Christoph Kiehl wrote:
> Jukka Zitting wrote:
> 
>>> I'm not saying it has to be the default, but it could be optional. I 
>>> have a patch for 1.4 that adds
>>> a lockingStrategy attribute to the repository config (per 
>>> repository), and it has a few tweaks in
>>> it. I can upload it for review. Our testing with 1.3.1 + FGL shows a 
>>> tree-fold improvement, so I
>>> think it's worth to further develop this feature.
>>
>> What do others think? If it's a configuration option, people can
>> always fall back to the current behaviour, and in case problems do
>> come up with FGL, we can always make 1.4.x patch releases to fix the
>> issues.
> 
> +1. We could still mark it as experimental.

unless we test it thoroughly until we release it we should definitively mark it 
as experimental and do *not* use it as the default.

if stress tests show that jackrabbit core is stable using FGL, you have my +1 
using it as the default.

regards
  marcel

Re: Fine grained locking in 1.4 (Was: Jackrabbit 1.4 release plan)

[Christoph Kiehl <ck...@sulu3000.de>]

Jukka Zitting wrote:

>> I'm not saying it has to be the default, but it could be optional. I have a patch for 1.4 that adds
>> a lockingStrategy attribute to the repository config (per repository), and it has a few tweaks in
>> it. I can upload it for review. Our testing with 1.3.1 + FGL shows a tree-fold improvement, so I
>> think it's worth to further develop this feature.
> 
> What do others think? If it's a configuration option, people can
> always fall back to the current behaviour, and in case problems do
> come up with FGL, we can always make 1.4.x patch releases to fix the
> issues.

+1. We could still mark it as experimental.

Cheers,
Christoph