[xwiki-devs] [VOTE] Change the attachment archive storage
Hi devs, 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. Artem, do you think you can help, as this is something related to what you've been working on? -- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
On Mar 3, 2008, at 5:34 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
Hi devs,
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.
Artem, do you think you can help, as this is something related to what you've been working on?
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? :) Thanks -Vincent
Vincent Massol wrote:
On Mar 3, 2008, at 5:34 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
Hi devs,
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.
Artem, do you think you can help, as this is something related to what you've been working on?
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? :)
Thanks -Vincent
It should be simpler, as attachments are just binary blobs, while the XML history is much too fragile. -- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
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. I think too.
-- Artem Melentyev
participants (3)
-
Artem Melentyev -
Sergiu Dumitriu -
Vincent Massol