4 Mar
2008
4 Mar
'08
9:18 p.m.
Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
I think too.
--
Artem Melentyev
Vincent Massol wrote:
> On Mar 3, 2008, at 5:34 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
>> As detailed in another mail
>> (http://lists.xwiki.org/pipermail/devs/2008-February/005344.html), the
>> current attachment archive mechanism is very inefficient. We should
>> write a new one, which stores attachment versions as plain binary
>> data,
>> and see if the current core is pluggable enough to allow the old
>> mechanism to be preserved as a plugin, and possibly define other
>> storage
>> mechanisms, like a filesystem based one.
+1
>> Artem, do you think you can help, as this is
something related to what
>> you've been working on?
Yes. I think i can help.
Attachment archive store is similar to old document archive store. But i
didn't touch it.
My only worry
is that last time we changed the database format we
spent several months stabilizing it... since there were lots of
problems. I'm not even sure we've finished stabilizing it fully...
So is there any chance that this would be simpler? :)
It should be simpler, as attachments are just binary blobs, while the
XML history is much too fragile.