couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Anderson <>
Subject Re: CouchDB Cluster/Partition GSoC
Date Wed, 08 Apr 2009 08:18:30 GMT

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 7, 2009, at 10:46 PM, Randall Leeds <>  

> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 01:41, Randall Leeds  
> <> wrote:
>> Thanks for the suggestions, Chris.
>> Link is still here:
>> I can't seem to access the edit page for the official proposal  
>> submission
>> right now. I get an error.
>> However, I've done some updates. At this point, I'm hoping that you  
>> or
>> Damien might consider picking this up and decide to endorse it and  
>> become a
>> mentor. Then it's up to the foundation and Google!
> I suppose if you do decide to, a link to the proposal should  
> probably go
> here:
> Proposal URL:
> It's a shame I can't seem to edit the proposal right now, so maybe a  
> link to
> the document version since it's more up-to-date?

You should be able to edit the wiki at least.

I'd be happy to mentor your project. I can certainly help you work in  
the Apache way, and maybe I can help a little with the technology.

>> Either way, I want to be involved in this work :)

Being unstoppable with the patches is the most important thing.  
Looking forward to it.

>> Cheers,
>> Randall
>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 16:30, Chris Anderson <>  
>> wrote:
>>> From the proposal:
>>>> 2. Fast http proxy writen in Erlang which leverages the  
>>>> consistent hash
>>> for determining destinations
>>> You might find it simpler to use Erlang messaging instead of http in
>>> the proxy layer. I'm not certain about this but it might end up
>>> simpler and faster in the long run. There are arguments in favor of
>>> http, so I'd say the choice is yours, but keep in mind someone will
>>> eventually attempt the other way, no matter which you chose.
>> Yeah, this is what I had in mind after we talked and I wrote this  
>> wrong.
>>>> August 10 - Submit patches for review, discussion and polishing
>>> I think it would make for a smoother process if you attempt to
>>> integrate as you go. It'll mean identifying the smallest useful  
>>> chunks
>>> of work, to get us from here to there, but it's also the open-source
>>> way, and I think it results in better code. Nothing like having what
>>> you're working on being used in real applications.
>>> Can you identify the very first step? - maybe it's an integration  
>>> test
>>> in JavaScript that proves that three dbs (on one host) can have
>>> document ids partitioned correctly. (I think a core thing here is
>>> getting the right validation functions on the right db's, so they
>>> reject bad PUTs)
>> I finally got around to a crack at adding some JS test examples.
>> I'd like to add some examples about querying partition setup, etc,  
>> but then
>> again, that might just be in the _design doc. There are so many  
>> questions
>> unsettled still that I feel like what I added is probably enough to  
>> get a
>> feel for it.

View raw message