couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Van Couvering <david.vancouver...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Bulk updates and eventual consistency
Date Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:47:08 GMT
OK, thanks, that is clear.

It's sort of guaranteeing a "binary compatibility" between single node and
multi-node solutions, where you don't paint yourself into a corner when just
working in a single node.

David

On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:03 AM, Antony Blakey <antony.blakey@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> On 19/03/2009, at 4:20 PM, David Van Couvering wrote:
>
>  My apologies if this was already answered in that very long thread, but
>> perhaps someone can summarize for me...
>>
>
> It is intended that the difference between single-node and multi-node
> cluster operation not be exposed to clients, to ensure that there are no
> single-node-only applications which don't scale to clustered operation. This
> means that "deployments where you are not doing replication" isn't a
> relevant distinction as far as the CouchDB model is concerned.
>
> IMO this is a questionable decision, but I'm in the minority.
>
> Antony Blakey
> -------------
> CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
> Ph: 0438 840 787
>
> The difference between ordinary and extraordinary is that little extra.
>
>
>


-- 
David W. Van Couvering

I am looking for a senior position working on server-side Java systems.
 Feel free to contact me if you know of any opportunities.

http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidvc
http://davidvancouvering.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/dcouvering

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message