[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [smila-dev] BinaryStorage service concept
|
Hi Dmitry
the API re-naming is based on the Binarystorage requirements :
http://wiki.eclipse.org/SMILA/Component_Requirements/Record_Binary_Storage_Requirements
Best Regards,
Marius
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dmitry Hazin" <dhazin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Smila project developer mailing list" <smila-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: [smila-dev] BinaryStorage service concept
Minor note regarding Binary Storage Service API: should it expose
knowledge about Records and Attachments?
Probably it's worth to use just something generic like getObject,
saveObject etc?
Thanks,
Dmitry
Marius Cimpean wrote:
Hi all,
The Binary storage concept page is available - please have a look and
submit your remarks. We can discuss the binary storage based on this page
http://wiki.eclipse.org/SMILA/Project_Concepts/Binary_Storage
Best Regards,
Marius
----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Menzel" <tmenzel@xxxxxxx>
To: "Smila project developer mailing list" <smila-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 1:16 PM
Subject: RE: [smila-dev] Re: Problems with BinStorage
hi jürgen,
very nice, if u had not written this, i would have. thx
from what I understood, VFS supports already diff. storage implementations
for diff. *mountpoints*. so, with VFS it's already possible to have a DB,
distributed FS, local FS at the same time, albeit in diff. namespaces.
and yes, I think it is not part of the client to say directly, I want DB
storage or local, it just would have to know the NS it is config'ed for
and hence all this moves into the config/admin realm. he then has to
decide what is best in what situation.
also: having followed the discussion so far, I think it is OK to say that
at this time it makes more sense to write the BinStorage API such that it
fits for the current use case, which is that the client doesn't need
control of folders (or am I wrong here?).
an interface for FS-like distributed storage we can add later IMO. and I
also have come to think that this could actually go into a new API that is
different or just complementary to the BinStorage API.
Kind regards
Thomas Menzel @ brox IT-Solutions GmbH
PS: should we open a bug for this discussion as well? or do u prefer
keeping this on the dev list?
-----Original Message-----
From: smila-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:smila-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Juergen.Schumacher@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Montag, 13. Oktober 2008 12:02
To: smila-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [smila-dev] Re: Problems with BinStorage
Hi,
It's not really clear to me, what this discussion is about currently (API?
backend?), so I'll try to sum up my point of view on the complete package,
and hopefully we'll get some answers from it (-;
The purpose of BinStorage is to store millions (or billions) of (possibly
large) binary objects and make them available to a relatively large number
of record processors running distributed in a "cluster" of computers.
Currently I do not know what kind of backend might be the best to match
these requirements, I rather think that it should be exchangeable in order
to be able to match different requirements: In one application it could be
simply a shared file system, because performance is sufficient and
administration is easy, in other applications distributed file systems
might be necessary, or some database technology or whatever. I don't think
that we can decide this now for good. Thus the API must be as generic as
possible to be implementable on any kind of backend.
And the details of the storage backend must not be of relevance to a
client: One blackboard just writes the attachments of a record to bin
storage, another one retrieves it again. They should not have to care
about where to put the objects in a hierarchy for good performance, it's
the task of BinStorage to create such hierarchies internally if a flat
storage is not sufficient.
On the other side, I'm not against having a BinStorage API that enables
different kinds of clients to use different "namespaces" in BinStorage to
separate their data. These namespaces could be hierarchical: a "file
system" metaphor behind the API might be helpful for developers using
BinStorage, because most users are accustomed to it, even if the actual
storage has nothing to with a file system. On the other hand this might
enable the configurator/administrator of BinStorage to distribute
partitions of data to different storage mediums (just dreaming now ;-) for
better performance. But BinStorage must not rely only on structures
provided by the clients, but must organize the stored data for optimal
performance even if a client does not provide any structure at all.
Hopefully this has not increased the confusion even more (-;
Yours,
Juergen.
_______________________________________________
smila-dev mailing list
smila-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/smila-dev
_______________________________________________
smila-dev mailing list
smila-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/smila-dev
_______________________________________________
smila-dev mailing list
smila-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/smila-dev
_______________________________________________
smila-dev mailing list
smila-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/smila-dev