You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to xindice-dev@xml.apache.org by Matt Liotta <ml...@r337.com> on 2002/06/12 19:52:15 UTC
replication
I am not sure if anyone has thought about replication for Xindice, but I
can certainly see some applications for it. One of the first issues for
dealing with replication is obtaining a globablly unique identifier for
each document in the database. As far as I can tell, this can be simply
done by concatenating the unique identifier of the document in a
collection with the unique identifier of the collection in the database.
Is this correct?
-Matt
Re: replication
Posted by "Mark J. Stang" <ma...@earthlink.net>.
The JMS is just standard JMS Client. I subscribe to messages and they
magically appear. JMS has a call-back like feature so when a message
arrives, my method is executed. The JMS I am using is JBoss, yes, it
is overkill. However, it is free and it works and it takes NO
configuration.
And if I need to run my Enterprise I have an EJB server handy. I plan
to replace it with JORAM, but haven't had time to see how the latest
version is doing. I think it is much better than 2.0. As far as the
Server is concerned that is Open Source also, it is called JASON,
http://www.djefer.com/~aws/. It is a fast way to create a multi-threaded
server. That is all it takes. My code would be a little obtuse because
I have the XML Query Language, etc in the midst of all of that. Suns
JMS tutorial provides a bunch of sample code.
And now after having written all of this, I will give some thought to making
a
JASON component that can be extended that subscribes to JMS messages :-).
Mark
Matt Liotta wrote:
> Just the server and JMS stuff. I am quite happy using XPath for my query
> language.
>
> -Matt
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark J. Stang [mailto:markstang@earthlink.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 4:11 PM
> > To: xindice-dev@xml.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: replication
> >
> > Not at this time ;-). Which part are you interested in?
> > The Server or the Query Language?
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > Matt Liotta wrote:
> >
> > > Is this an open source project?
> > >
> > > -Matt
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Mark J. Stang [mailto:markstang@earthlink.net]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 3:41 PM
> > > > To: xindice-dev@xml.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: replication
> > > >
> > > > Matt,
> > > > Starting with my own Server. It talks to Xindice. However, I
> am
> > > > going "embed" Xindice in my server so that I don't have the
> network
> > > > latency and the extra JVM hit. I wrote a SQL like query language
> > > that
> > > > my clients use to talk to Xindice. My server parses, runs the
> > > queries
> > > > and
> > > > sends the responses. It does all the XPath so the clients don't
> > > have
> > > > to.
> > > > They do things like:
> > > >
> > > > select customer from customers where lname starts with 'Stang'
> > > >
> > > > Mark
> > > >
> > > > Matt Liotta wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > That is not a bad idea. Did you layer the JMS client for Xindice
> on
> > > top
> > > > > of its Java API or did you make an actual JMS API for Xindice?
> > > > >
> > > > > -Matt
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Mark J. Stang [mailto:markstang@earthlink.net]
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 12:24 PM
> > > > > > To: xindice-dev@xml.apache.org
> > > > > > Subject: Re: replication
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have been approaching the problem slightly differently.
> Rather
> > > > > > than have my clients talk to Xindice directly, I have an
> > > intermediate
> > > > > > Server. All of my clients are JMS clients, my "Xindice"
> server is
> > > > > > also a JMS client. My clients subscribe to "documents". My
> > > > > > plan for replication is to have another "JMS Client/Server"
> also
> > > > > > subscribe. It listens for changes and updates Xindice
> silently
> > > > > > in the background. If one dies, it steps up and takes over.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mark
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Matt Liotta wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > ic, I am currently generating globally unique identifiers
> for
> > > all
> > > > > > > documents no matter what collection they are in. This would
> of
> > > > > course
> > > > > > > all my application to make use of replication without fear
> of
> > > > > documents
> > > > > > > in different collections colliding. However, this wouldn't
> work
> > > for
> > > > > all
> > > > > > > applications, which is why I was suggesting the
> concatenation of
> > > the
> > > > > > > collection identifier with the document identifier.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Matt
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: Sean Kelly [mailto:kelly@ad1440.net]
> > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 11:34 AM
> > > > > > > > To: xindice-dev@xml.apache.org
> > > > > > > > Subject: RE: replication
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I thought Xindice only enforced unique document
> identifiers
> > > at
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > collection level. What's to stop someone from adding the
> > > same
> > > > > > > document
> > > > > > > > > uuid to another collection?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nothing.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > By virtue of joining the same peergroup, peers agree that
> the
> > > same
> > > > > ID
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > document means the same document. If two peers want the
> same
> > > ID
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > refer
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > different documents, they must belong to different
> peergroups.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In other words, it's up to the peergroup to provide an ID
> > > policy
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > mechanism.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Sean Kelly
> > > > > > > > Independent Consultant
> > > > > > > > http://kelly.homeunix.com/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Mark J Stang
> > > > > > Architect
> > > > > > Cybershop Systems
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Mark J Stang
> > > > Architect
> > > > Cybershop Systems
> >
> > --
> > Mark J Stang
> > Architect
> > Cybershop Systems
--
Mark J Stang
Architect
Cybershop Systems
RE: replication
Posted by Matt Liotta <ml...@r337.com>.
Just the server and JMS stuff. I am quite happy using XPath for my query
language.
-Matt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark J. Stang [mailto:markstang@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 4:11 PM
> To: xindice-dev@xml.apache.org
> Subject: Re: replication
>
> Not at this time ;-). Which part are you interested in?
> The Server or the Query Language?
>
> Mark
>
> Matt Liotta wrote:
>
> > Is this an open source project?
> >
> > -Matt
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Mark J. Stang [mailto:markstang@earthlink.net]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 3:41 PM
> > > To: xindice-dev@xml.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: replication
> > >
> > > Matt,
> > > Starting with my own Server. It talks to Xindice. However, I
am
> > > going "embed" Xindice in my server so that I don't have the
network
> > > latency and the extra JVM hit. I wrote a SQL like query language
> > that
> > > my clients use to talk to Xindice. My server parses, runs the
> > queries
> > > and
> > > sends the responses. It does all the XPath so the clients don't
> > have
> > > to.
> > > They do things like:
> > >
> > > select customer from customers where lname starts with 'Stang'
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > > Matt Liotta wrote:
> > >
> > > > That is not a bad idea. Did you layer the JMS client for Xindice
on
> > top
> > > > of its Java API or did you make an actual JMS API for Xindice?
> > > >
> > > > -Matt
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Mark J. Stang [mailto:markstang@earthlink.net]
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 12:24 PM
> > > > > To: xindice-dev@xml.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: replication
> > > > >
> > > > > I have been approaching the problem slightly differently.
Rather
> > > > > than have my clients talk to Xindice directly, I have an
> > intermediate
> > > > > Server. All of my clients are JMS clients, my "Xindice"
server is
> > > > > also a JMS client. My clients subscribe to "documents". My
> > > > > plan for replication is to have another "JMS Client/Server"
also
> > > > > subscribe. It listens for changes and updates Xindice
silently
> > > > > in the background. If one dies, it steps up and takes over.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mark
> > > > >
> > > > > Matt Liotta wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > ic, I am currently generating globally unique identifiers
for
> > all
> > > > > > documents no matter what collection they are in. This would
of
> > > > course
> > > > > > all my application to make use of replication without fear
of
> > > > documents
> > > > > > in different collections colliding. However, this wouldn't
work
> > for
> > > > all
> > > > > > applications, which is why I was suggesting the
concatenation of
> > the
> > > > > > collection identifier with the document identifier.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Matt
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Sean Kelly [mailto:kelly@ad1440.net]
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 11:34 AM
> > > > > > > To: xindice-dev@xml.apache.org
> > > > > > > Subject: RE: replication
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I thought Xindice only enforced unique document
identifiers
> > at
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > collection level. What's to stop someone from adding the
> > same
> > > > > > document
> > > > > > > > uuid to another collection?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nothing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > By virtue of joining the same peergroup, peers agree that
the
> > same
> > > > ID
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > document means the same document. If two peers want the
same
> > ID
> > > > to
> > > > > > refer
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > different documents, they must belong to different
peergroups.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In other words, it's up to the peergroup to provide an ID
> > policy
> > > > and
> > > > > > > mechanism.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Sean Kelly
> > > > > > > Independent Consultant
> > > > > > > http://kelly.homeunix.com/
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Mark J Stang
> > > > > Architect
> > > > > Cybershop Systems
> > >
> > > --
> > > Mark J Stang
> > > Architect
> > > Cybershop Systems
>
> --
> Mark J Stang
> Architect
> Cybershop Systems
Re: replication
Posted by "Mark J. Stang" <ma...@earthlink.net>.
Not at this time ;-). Which part are you interested in?
The Server or the Query Language?
Mark
Matt Liotta wrote:
> Is this an open source project?
>
> -Matt
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark J. Stang [mailto:markstang@earthlink.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 3:41 PM
> > To: xindice-dev@xml.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: replication
> >
> > Matt,
> > Starting with my own Server. It talks to Xindice. However, I am
> > going "embed" Xindice in my server so that I don't have the network
> > latency and the extra JVM hit. I wrote a SQL like query language
> that
> > my clients use to talk to Xindice. My server parses, runs the
> queries
> > and
> > sends the responses. It does all the XPath so the clients don't
> have
> > to.
> > They do things like:
> >
> > select customer from customers where lname starts with 'Stang'
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > Matt Liotta wrote:
> >
> > > That is not a bad idea. Did you layer the JMS client for Xindice on
> top
> > > of its Java API or did you make an actual JMS API for Xindice?
> > >
> > > -Matt
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Mark J. Stang [mailto:markstang@earthlink.net]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 12:24 PM
> > > > To: xindice-dev@xml.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: replication
> > > >
> > > > I have been approaching the problem slightly differently. Rather
> > > > than have my clients talk to Xindice directly, I have an
> intermediate
> > > > Server. All of my clients are JMS clients, my "Xindice" server is
> > > > also a JMS client. My clients subscribe to "documents". My
> > > > plan for replication is to have another "JMS Client/Server" also
> > > > subscribe. It listens for changes and updates Xindice silently
> > > > in the background. If one dies, it steps up and takes over.
> > > >
> > > > Mark
> > > >
> > > > Matt Liotta wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > ic, I am currently generating globally unique identifiers for
> all
> > > > > documents no matter what collection they are in. This would of
> > > course
> > > > > all my application to make use of replication without fear of
> > > documents
> > > > > in different collections colliding. However, this wouldn't work
> for
> > > all
> > > > > applications, which is why I was suggesting the concatenation of
> the
> > > > > collection identifier with the document identifier.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Matt
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Sean Kelly [mailto:kelly@ad1440.net]
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 11:34 AM
> > > > > > To: xindice-dev@xml.apache.org
> > > > > > Subject: RE: replication
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I thought Xindice only enforced unique document identifiers
> at
> > > the
> > > > > > > collection level. What's to stop someone from adding the
> same
> > > > > document
> > > > > > > uuid to another collection?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nothing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > By virtue of joining the same peergroup, peers agree that the
> same
> > > ID
> > > > > for
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > document means the same document. If two peers want the same
> ID
> > > to
> > > > > refer
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > different documents, they must belong to different peergroups.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In other words, it's up to the peergroup to provide an ID
> policy
> > > and
> > > > > > mechanism.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Sean Kelly
> > > > > > Independent Consultant
> > > > > > http://kelly.homeunix.com/
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Mark J Stang
> > > > Architect
> > > > Cybershop Systems
> >
> > --
> > Mark J Stang
> > Architect
> > Cybershop Systems
--
Mark J Stang
Architect
Cybershop Systems
RE: replication
Posted by Matt Liotta <ml...@r337.com>.
Is this an open source project?
-Matt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark J. Stang [mailto:markstang@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 3:41 PM
> To: xindice-dev@xml.apache.org
> Subject: Re: replication
>
> Matt,
> Starting with my own Server. It talks to Xindice. However, I am
> going "embed" Xindice in my server so that I don't have the network
> latency and the extra JVM hit. I wrote a SQL like query language
that
> my clients use to talk to Xindice. My server parses, runs the
queries
> and
> sends the responses. It does all the XPath so the clients don't
have
> to.
> They do things like:
>
> select customer from customers where lname starts with 'Stang'
>
> Mark
>
> Matt Liotta wrote:
>
> > That is not a bad idea. Did you layer the JMS client for Xindice on
top
> > of its Java API or did you make an actual JMS API for Xindice?
> >
> > -Matt
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Mark J. Stang [mailto:markstang@earthlink.net]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 12:24 PM
> > > To: xindice-dev@xml.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: replication
> > >
> > > I have been approaching the problem slightly differently. Rather
> > > than have my clients talk to Xindice directly, I have an
intermediate
> > > Server. All of my clients are JMS clients, my "Xindice" server is
> > > also a JMS client. My clients subscribe to "documents". My
> > > plan for replication is to have another "JMS Client/Server" also
> > > subscribe. It listens for changes and updates Xindice silently
> > > in the background. If one dies, it steps up and takes over.
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > > Matt Liotta wrote:
> > >
> > > > ic, I am currently generating globally unique identifiers for
all
> > > > documents no matter what collection they are in. This would of
> > course
> > > > all my application to make use of replication without fear of
> > documents
> > > > in different collections colliding. However, this wouldn't work
for
> > all
> > > > applications, which is why I was suggesting the concatenation of
the
> > > > collection identifier with the document identifier.
> > > >
> > > > -Matt
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Sean Kelly [mailto:kelly@ad1440.net]
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 11:34 AM
> > > > > To: xindice-dev@xml.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: RE: replication
> > > > >
> > > > > > I thought Xindice only enforced unique document identifiers
at
> > the
> > > > > > collection level. What's to stop someone from adding the
same
> > > > document
> > > > > > uuid to another collection?
> > > > >
> > > > > Nothing.
> > > > >
> > > > > By virtue of joining the same peergroup, peers agree that the
same
> > ID
> > > > for
> > > > > a
> > > > > document means the same document. If two peers want the same
ID
> > to
> > > > refer
> > > > > to
> > > > > different documents, they must belong to different peergroups.
> > > > >
> > > > > In other words, it's up to the peergroup to provide an ID
policy
> > and
> > > > > mechanism.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Sean Kelly
> > > > > Independent Consultant
> > > > > http://kelly.homeunix.com/
> > >
> > > --
> > > Mark J Stang
> > > Architect
> > > Cybershop Systems
>
> --
> Mark J Stang
> Architect
> Cybershop Systems
Re: replication
Posted by "Mark J. Stang" <ma...@earthlink.net>.
Matt,
Starting with my own Server. It talks to Xindice. However, I am
going "embed" Xindice in my server so that I don't have the network
latency and the extra JVM hit. I wrote a SQL like query language that
my clients use to talk to Xindice. My server parses, runs the queries and
sends the responses. It does all the XPath so the clients don't have to.
They do things like:
select customer from customers where lname starts with 'Stang'
Mark
Matt Liotta wrote:
> That is not a bad idea. Did you layer the JMS client for Xindice on top
> of its Java API or did you make an actual JMS API for Xindice?
>
> -Matt
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark J. Stang [mailto:markstang@earthlink.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 12:24 PM
> > To: xindice-dev@xml.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: replication
> >
> > I have been approaching the problem slightly differently. Rather
> > than have my clients talk to Xindice directly, I have an intermediate
> > Server. All of my clients are JMS clients, my "Xindice" server is
> > also a JMS client. My clients subscribe to "documents". My
> > plan for replication is to have another "JMS Client/Server" also
> > subscribe. It listens for changes and updates Xindice silently
> > in the background. If one dies, it steps up and takes over.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > Matt Liotta wrote:
> >
> > > ic, I am currently generating globally unique identifiers for all
> > > documents no matter what collection they are in. This would of
> course
> > > all my application to make use of replication without fear of
> documents
> > > in different collections colliding. However, this wouldn't work for
> all
> > > applications, which is why I was suggesting the concatenation of the
> > > collection identifier with the document identifier.
> > >
> > > -Matt
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Sean Kelly [mailto:kelly@ad1440.net]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 11:34 AM
> > > > To: xindice-dev@xml.apache.org
> > > > Subject: RE: replication
> > > >
> > > > > I thought Xindice only enforced unique document identifiers at
> the
> > > > > collection level. What's to stop someone from adding the same
> > > document
> > > > > uuid to another collection?
> > > >
> > > > Nothing.
> > > >
> > > > By virtue of joining the same peergroup, peers agree that the same
> ID
> > > for
> > > > a
> > > > document means the same document. If two peers want the same ID
> to
> > > refer
> > > > to
> > > > different documents, they must belong to different peergroups.
> > > >
> > > > In other words, it's up to the peergroup to provide an ID policy
> and
> > > > mechanism.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Sean Kelly
> > > > Independent Consultant
> > > > http://kelly.homeunix.com/
> >
> > --
> > Mark J Stang
> > Architect
> > Cybershop Systems
--
Mark J Stang
Architect
Cybershop Systems
RE: replication
Posted by Matt Liotta <ml...@r337.com>.
That is not a bad idea. Did you layer the JMS client for Xindice on top
of its Java API or did you make an actual JMS API for Xindice?
-Matt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark J. Stang [mailto:markstang@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 12:24 PM
> To: xindice-dev@xml.apache.org
> Subject: Re: replication
>
> I have been approaching the problem slightly differently. Rather
> than have my clients talk to Xindice directly, I have an intermediate
> Server. All of my clients are JMS clients, my "Xindice" server is
> also a JMS client. My clients subscribe to "documents". My
> plan for replication is to have another "JMS Client/Server" also
> subscribe. It listens for changes and updates Xindice silently
> in the background. If one dies, it steps up and takes over.
>
> Mark
>
> Matt Liotta wrote:
>
> > ic, I am currently generating globally unique identifiers for all
> > documents no matter what collection they are in. This would of
course
> > all my application to make use of replication without fear of
documents
> > in different collections colliding. However, this wouldn't work for
all
> > applications, which is why I was suggesting the concatenation of the
> > collection identifier with the document identifier.
> >
> > -Matt
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Sean Kelly [mailto:kelly@ad1440.net]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 11:34 AM
> > > To: xindice-dev@xml.apache.org
> > > Subject: RE: replication
> > >
> > > > I thought Xindice only enforced unique document identifiers at
the
> > > > collection level. What's to stop someone from adding the same
> > document
> > > > uuid to another collection?
> > >
> > > Nothing.
> > >
> > > By virtue of joining the same peergroup, peers agree that the same
ID
> > for
> > > a
> > > document means the same document. If two peers want the same ID
to
> > refer
> > > to
> > > different documents, they must belong to different peergroups.
> > >
> > > In other words, it's up to the peergroup to provide an ID policy
and
> > > mechanism.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sean Kelly
> > > Independent Consultant
> > > http://kelly.homeunix.com/
>
> --
> Mark J Stang
> Architect
> Cybershop Systems
Re: replication
Posted by "Mark J. Stang" <ma...@earthlink.net>.
I have been approaching the problem slightly differently. Rather
than have my clients talk to Xindice directly, I have an intermediate
Server. All of my clients are JMS clients, my "Xindice" server is
also a JMS client. My clients subscribe to "documents". My
plan for replication is to have another "JMS Client/Server" also
subscribe. It listens for changes and updates Xindice silently
in the background. If one dies, it steps up and takes over.
Mark
Matt Liotta wrote:
> ic, I am currently generating globally unique identifiers for all
> documents no matter what collection they are in. This would of course
> all my application to make use of replication without fear of documents
> in different collections colliding. However, this wouldn't work for all
> applications, which is why I was suggesting the concatenation of the
> collection identifier with the document identifier.
>
> -Matt
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sean Kelly [mailto:kelly@ad1440.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 11:34 AM
> > To: xindice-dev@xml.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: replication
> >
> > > I thought Xindice only enforced unique document identifiers at the
> > > collection level. What's to stop someone from adding the same
> document
> > > uuid to another collection?
> >
> > Nothing.
> >
> > By virtue of joining the same peergroup, peers agree that the same ID
> for
> > a
> > document means the same document. If two peers want the same ID to
> refer
> > to
> > different documents, they must belong to different peergroups.
> >
> > In other words, it's up to the peergroup to provide an ID policy and
> > mechanism.
> >
> > --
> > Sean Kelly
> > Independent Consultant
> > http://kelly.homeunix.com/
--
Mark J Stang
Architect
Cybershop Systems
RE: replication
Posted by Matt Liotta <ml...@r337.com>.
ic, I am currently generating globally unique identifiers for all
documents no matter what collection they are in. This would of course
all my application to make use of replication without fear of documents
in different collections colliding. However, this wouldn't work for all
applications, which is why I was suggesting the concatenation of the
collection identifier with the document identifier.
-Matt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Kelly [mailto:kelly@ad1440.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 11:34 AM
> To: xindice-dev@xml.apache.org
> Subject: RE: replication
>
> > I thought Xindice only enforced unique document identifiers at the
> > collection level. What's to stop someone from adding the same
document
> > uuid to another collection?
>
> Nothing.
>
> By virtue of joining the same peergroup, peers agree that the same ID
for
> a
> document means the same document. If two peers want the same ID to
refer
> to
> different documents, they must belong to different peergroups.
>
> In other words, it's up to the peergroup to provide an ID policy and
> mechanism.
>
> --
> Sean Kelly
> Independent Consultant
> http://kelly.homeunix.com/
RE: replication
Posted by Sean Kelly <ke...@ad1440.net>.
> I thought Xindice only enforced unique document identifiers at the
> collection level. What's to stop someone from adding the same document
> uuid to another collection?
Nothing.
By virtue of joining the same peergroup, peers agree that the same ID for a
document means the same document. If two peers want the same ID to refer to
different documents, they must belong to different peergroups.
In other words, it's up to the peergroup to provide an ID policy and
mechanism.
--
Sean Kelly
Independent Consultant
http://kelly.homeunix.com/
RE: replication
Posted by Matt Liotta <ml...@r337.com>.
I thought Xindice only enforced unique document identifiers at the
collection level. What's to stop someone from adding the same document
uuid to another collection?
-Matt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Kelly [mailto:kelly@ad1440.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 11:21 AM
> To: xindice-dev@xml.apache.org
> Subject: RE: replication
>
> That sounds like something similar to what I'm working on: combining
> Xindice
> with JXTA. The idea is to make a peer-to-peer XML database.
>
> For my application, globally unique identifiers for documents are
URIs.
> That allows me to use URNs like urn:oid:1.3.1.6.7566... for an
> OID-identified document or urn:uuid:7e1f1218ab800128... for a
> UUID-identified document.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Matt Liotta [mailto:mliotta@r337.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday 12 June 2002 10.52 AM
> > To: xindice-dev@xml.apache.org
> > Subject: replication
> >
> >
> > I am not sure if anyone has thought about replication for Xindice,
but I
> > can certainly see some applications for it. One of the first issues
for
> > dealing with replication is obtaining a globablly unique identifier
for
> > each document in the database. As far as I can tell, this can be
simply
> > done by concatenating the unique identifier of the document in a
> > collection with the unique identifier of the collection in the
database.
> > Is this correct?
> >
> > -Matt
> >
Re: replication
Posted by "Mark J. Stang" <ma...@earthlink.net>.
Sean,
I liked the idea of using JXTA. I wanted to use JXTA awhile back, but
all that was available at the time was the Shell. Has it matured enough
so that it can be easily used within an application?
Mark
Sean Kelly wrote:
> Matt:
>
> The idea behind Xindice P2P is to provide a JXTA service that more or less
> provides the same interface as the XML:DB API. But instead of querying or
> updating a single database, you query and update the entire peergroup.
>
> Peers can replicate popular content, making it faster and more reliable to
> locate certain documents. If you were getting urn:oid:1.2.3 from a peer
> running on someone's laptop and they went out of range of their WiFi
> provider, you could get urn:oid:1.2.3 from another peer that had a copy.
> You could then host urn:oid:1.2.3, too for other peers.
>
> Using JXTA membership services you can create peergroups for specific
> organizations or interests, and control who can join and thus access or
> update content within the group.
>
> JXTA itself provides secure, TLS-based transport for applications that
> require secure transfer of documents. JXTA also solves the problems of
> tunneling through firewalls and over NAT boundaries.
>
> --Sean
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Matt Liotta [mailto:mliotta@r337.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday 12 June 2002 11.26 AM
> > To: xindice-dev@xml.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: replication
> >
> >
> > Please do tell more about your ideas for a peer-to-peer XML database. I
> > am currently using Xindice for web application component persistence.
> > This means I need to have a single Xindice instance shared by all of my
> > web application servers. I would rather have a Xindice instance per web
> > application server that is able to replicate with the other Xindice
> > instances.
> >
> > -Matt
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Sean Kelly [mailto:kelly@ad1440.net]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 11:21 AM
> > > To: xindice-dev@xml.apache.org
> > > Subject: RE: replication
> > >
> > > That sounds like something similar to what I'm working on: combining
> > > Xindice
> > > with JXTA. The idea is to make a peer-to-peer XML database.
> > >
> > > For my application, globally unique identifiers for documents are
> > URIs.
> > > That allows me to use URNs like urn:oid:1.3.1.6.7566... for an
> > > OID-identified document or urn:uuid:7e1f1218ab800128... for a
> > > UUID-identified document.
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Matt Liotta [mailto:mliotta@r337.com]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday 12 June 2002 10.52 AM
> > > > To: xindice-dev@xml.apache.org
> > > > Subject: replication
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I am not sure if anyone has thought about replication for Xindice,
> > but I
> > > > can certainly see some applications for it. One of the first issues
> > for
> > > > dealing with replication is obtaining a globablly unique identifier
> > for
> > > > each document in the database. As far as I can tell, this can be
> > simply
> > > > done by concatenating the unique identifier of the document in a
> > > > collection with the unique identifier of the collection in the
> > database.
> > > > Is this correct?
> > > >
> > > > -Matt
> > > >
> >
--
Mark J Stang
Architect
Cybershop Systems
Re: replication
Posted by Vanessa Williams <v....@acm.org>.
Sean,
Is Xindice P2P being hosted at jxta.org? I'm the project owner for
jxtaSpaces, and am simultaneously working on a (personal, not open source)
Xindice project related to coordination spaces. Perhaps there's some useful
overlap with Xindice P2P. Check out jxtaspaces.jxta.org if you like. I warn
you it's out of date (waiting for a contributor to update the site with
design overview info etc.), but you'll get the idea what it's for at least.
Regards,
Vanessa
Sean Kelly wrote:
> Matt:
>
> The idea behind Xindice P2P is to provide a JXTA service that more or less
> provides the same interface as the XML:DB API. But instead of querying or
> updating a single database, you query and update the entire peergroup.
>
> Peers can replicate popular content, making it faster and more reliable to
> locate certain documents. If you were getting urn:oid:1.2.3 from a peer
> running on someone's laptop and they went out of range of their WiFi
> provider, you could get urn:oid:1.2.3 from another peer that had a copy.
> You could then host urn:oid:1.2.3, too for other peers.
>
> Using JXTA membership services you can create peergroups for specific
> organizations or interests, and control who can join and thus access or
> update content within the group.
>
> JXTA itself provides secure, TLS-based transport for applications that
> require secure transfer of documents. JXTA also solves the problems of
> tunneling through firewalls and over NAT boundaries.
>
> --Sean
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:mliotta@r337.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday 12 June 2002 11.26 AM
>> To: xindice-dev@xml.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: replication
>>
>>
>> Please do tell more about your ideas for a peer-to-peer XML database. I
>> am currently using Xindice for web application component persistence.
>> This means I need to have a single Xindice instance shared by all of my
>> web application servers. I would rather have a Xindice instance per web
>> application server that is able to replicate with the other Xindice
>> instances.
>>
>> -Matt
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Sean Kelly [mailto:kelly@ad1440.net]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 11:21 AM
>>> To: xindice-dev@xml.apache.org
>>> Subject: RE: replication
>>>
>>> That sounds like something similar to what I'm working on: combining
>>> Xindice
>>> with JXTA. The idea is to make a peer-to-peer XML database.
>>>
>>> For my application, globally unique identifiers for documents are
>> URIs.
>>> That allows me to use URNs like urn:oid:1.3.1.6.7566... for an
>>> OID-identified document or urn:uuid:7e1f1218ab800128... for a
>>> UUID-identified document.
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:mliotta@r337.com]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday 12 June 2002 10.52 AM
>>>> To: xindice-dev@xml.apache.org
>>>> Subject: replication
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure if anyone has thought about replication for Xindice,
>> but I
>>>> can certainly see some applications for it. One of the first issues
>> for
>>>> dealing with replication is obtaining a globablly unique identifier
>> for
>>>> each document in the database. As far as I can tell, this can be
>> simply
>>>> done by concatenating the unique identifier of the document in a
>>>> collection with the unique identifier of the collection in the
>> database.
>>>> Is this correct?
>>>>
>>>> -Matt
>>>>
>>
>
RE: replication
Posted by Sean Kelly <ke...@ad1440.net>.
Matt:
The idea behind Xindice P2P is to provide a JXTA service that more or less
provides the same interface as the XML:DB API. But instead of querying or
updating a single database, you query and update the entire peergroup.
Peers can replicate popular content, making it faster and more reliable to
locate certain documents. If you were getting urn:oid:1.2.3 from a peer
running on someone's laptop and they went out of range of their WiFi
provider, you could get urn:oid:1.2.3 from another peer that had a copy.
You could then host urn:oid:1.2.3, too for other peers.
Using JXTA membership services you can create peergroups for specific
organizations or interests, and control who can join and thus access or
update content within the group.
JXTA itself provides secure, TLS-based transport for applications that
require secure transfer of documents. JXTA also solves the problems of
tunneling through firewalls and over NAT boundaries.
--Sean
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:mliotta@r337.com]
> Sent: Wednesday 12 June 2002 11.26 AM
> To: xindice-dev@xml.apache.org
> Subject: RE: replication
>
>
> Please do tell more about your ideas for a peer-to-peer XML database. I
> am currently using Xindice for web application component persistence.
> This means I need to have a single Xindice instance shared by all of my
> web application servers. I would rather have a Xindice instance per web
> application server that is able to replicate with the other Xindice
> instances.
>
> -Matt
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sean Kelly [mailto:kelly@ad1440.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 11:21 AM
> > To: xindice-dev@xml.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: replication
> >
> > That sounds like something similar to what I'm working on: combining
> > Xindice
> > with JXTA. The idea is to make a peer-to-peer XML database.
> >
> > For my application, globally unique identifiers for documents are
> URIs.
> > That allows me to use URNs like urn:oid:1.3.1.6.7566... for an
> > OID-identified document or urn:uuid:7e1f1218ab800128... for a
> > UUID-identified document.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Matt Liotta [mailto:mliotta@r337.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday 12 June 2002 10.52 AM
> > > To: xindice-dev@xml.apache.org
> > > Subject: replication
> > >
> > >
> > > I am not sure if anyone has thought about replication for Xindice,
> but I
> > > can certainly see some applications for it. One of the first issues
> for
> > > dealing with replication is obtaining a globablly unique identifier
> for
> > > each document in the database. As far as I can tell, this can be
> simply
> > > done by concatenating the unique identifier of the document in a
> > > collection with the unique identifier of the collection in the
> database.
> > > Is this correct?
> > >
> > > -Matt
> > >
>
RE: replication
Posted by Matt Liotta <ml...@r337.com>.
Please do tell more about your ideas for a peer-to-peer XML database. I
am currently using Xindice for web application component persistence.
This means I need to have a single Xindice instance shared by all of my
web application servers. I would rather have a Xindice instance per web
application server that is able to replicate with the other Xindice
instances.
-Matt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Kelly [mailto:kelly@ad1440.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 11:21 AM
> To: xindice-dev@xml.apache.org
> Subject: RE: replication
>
> That sounds like something similar to what I'm working on: combining
> Xindice
> with JXTA. The idea is to make a peer-to-peer XML database.
>
> For my application, globally unique identifiers for documents are
URIs.
> That allows me to use URNs like urn:oid:1.3.1.6.7566... for an
> OID-identified document or urn:uuid:7e1f1218ab800128... for a
> UUID-identified document.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Matt Liotta [mailto:mliotta@r337.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday 12 June 2002 10.52 AM
> > To: xindice-dev@xml.apache.org
> > Subject: replication
> >
> >
> > I am not sure if anyone has thought about replication for Xindice,
but I
> > can certainly see some applications for it. One of the first issues
for
> > dealing with replication is obtaining a globablly unique identifier
for
> > each document in the database. As far as I can tell, this can be
simply
> > done by concatenating the unique identifier of the document in a
> > collection with the unique identifier of the collection in the
database.
> > Is this correct?
> >
> > -Matt
> >
RE: replication
Posted by Sean Kelly <ke...@ad1440.net>.
That sounds like something similar to what I'm working on: combining Xindice
with JXTA. The idea is to make a peer-to-peer XML database.
For my application, globally unique identifiers for documents are URIs.
That allows me to use URNs like urn:oid:1.3.1.6.7566... for an
OID-identified document or urn:uuid:7e1f1218ab800128... for a
UUID-identified document.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:mliotta@r337.com]
> Sent: Wednesday 12 June 2002 10.52 AM
> To: xindice-dev@xml.apache.org
> Subject: replication
>
>
> I am not sure if anyone has thought about replication for Xindice, but I
> can certainly see some applications for it. One of the first issues for
> dealing with replication is obtaining a globablly unique identifier for
> each document in the database. As far as I can tell, this can be simply
> done by concatenating the unique identifier of the document in a
> collection with the unique identifier of the collection in the database.
> Is this correct?
>
> -Matt
>