Hi Option to have service like BaseX in the cloud would be very nice. I was dreaming about it too. On the other hand, I understand, that resources, being available at cloud solutions like Google Engine, AWS etc. are of quite different kind, that needed for efficient BaseX. When I see flashing of HD LED on my notebook, when performing bigger operations, I know, porting BaseX to any less disk efficient platform would kill the performance completely.
For now, the only option in the cloud is sort of virtual computer (like AWS EC2 etc.)
Jan
PS: Christian - you see, providing great service creates even bigger demand :-).
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Christian Grün christian.gruen@gmail.comwrote:
Hi Min,
I have no idea how much time and effort would have to be spent to support the datastore API. In general, we have spent lots of effort and thoughts into our own storage architecture. It's one of the key factors for the efficiency of BaseX, so I'm not sure if switching to another database backend is such a good idea, not to mention transaction issues, etc. But I might be wrong.
Christian
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Min Idzelis min123@gmail.com wrote:
I realize that BaseX can't be used as-is on the Google App Engine. The question I have is how much work would it be to get it up and running on
the
App Engine's datastore API instead of whatever you are using for indexing/storage. There is no access to a filesystem. The datastore does have a concept of hierarchical (parent-child) entities. In the datastore, the only operations that are supported are: get/put by key, inequality
(<,
, =) filters, and a way to limit results that have a common ancestor
(key). Would this be enough to support BaseX?
Thanks,
Min
BaseX-Talk mailing list BaseX-Talk@mailman.uni-konstanz.de https://mailman.uni-konstanz.de/mailman/listinfo/basex-talk
BaseX-Talk mailing list BaseX-Talk@mailman.uni-konstanz.de https://mailman.uni-konstanz.de/mailman/listinfo/basex-talk