On Aug 17, 2010, at 1:31 PM, J Chris Anderson wrote: > > On Aug 16, 2010, at 1:28 PM, Robert Newson wrote: > >> Just one point from me. The distributed goop in Erlang is pretty much >> just for the everyone-connected-to-everyone-else old school cluster >> model. I don't think it's useful for the kind of scale I associate >> with CouchDB at all. >> > > Just my 1 cent: > > CouchDB replication is intentionally not special. That is, it is just another > web client. It is designed and intended that other non-CouchDB / non-Erlang > softwares can replicate with Couch. > > Keeping everything in HTTP makes it much easier to reason about security and > application logic. Eg: replication is subject to the same policy as direct > client access. This takes some time to wrap your head around, but once you > do, you'll realize that any other way would lead to madness. > > That said, I'm not against more-effiecient transports for the existing > semantics. They just seem to be optimizing the wrong thing, as the HTTP > overhead doesn't matter in real life. > > Also, see for instance Cloudant's code, which uses Erlang transport for > clustering of the same logical Couch. Replication is for bridging multiple > logical Couches. However you want to build a single big Couch, any old > transport is fine. Lounge is extra awesome because it's living proof that you > can build a big Couch out of smaller Couches. >
BTW added this to a wiki here: http://wiki.couchone.com/page/http-replication > Chris > >> B. >> >> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Randall Leeds <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> There is no reason I see why HTTP is not a valid transport for a DHT nor any >>> reason why it is not possible to gossip over HTTP. I think it's confusing >>> the issue to blame HTTP for any problem Couch has with distribution. >>> >>> Enlighten me if I'm wrong, of course. >>> >>> On Aug 16, 2010 1:19 PM, "Jan Lehnardt" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 16 Aug 2010, at 22:11, Noah Slater wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 16 Aug 2010, at 20:52, Miles Fidelman wrote: >>> ... >>> I'd like to add that Miles does have a point, but we have good reasons to >>> have HTTP for now and in the future. It doesn't mean that applying >>> specializations where applicable is not an option (double negative :). >>> >>> Cheers >>> Jan >>> -- >>> >
