Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 97466 invoked from network); 14 Aug 2009 23:01:46 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 14 Aug 2009 23:01:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 84913 invoked by uid 500); 14 Aug 2009 23:01:52 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 84833 invoked by uid 500); 14 Aug 2009 23:01:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 84823 invoked by uid 99); 14 Aug 2009 23:01:52 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 23:01:52 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [80.68.94.123] (HELO tumbolia.org) (80.68.94.123) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 23:01:41 +0000 Received: from nslater by tumbolia.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Mc5lx-0001Yi-1i for dev@couchdb.apache.org; Sat, 15 Aug 2009 00:01:21 +0100 Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 00:01:21 +0100 From: Noah Slater To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Subject: Re: Apache sub-projects Message-ID: <20090814230121.GC4324@tumbolia.org> Mail-Followup-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org References: <20090814134327.GB31838@tumbolia.org> <20090814171912.GA1119@tumbolia.org> <3915c69d0908141511i280568fane4ab43264e5f4ea4@mail.gmail.com> <20090814221733.GB4324@tumbolia.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Noah: Awesome User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 03:49:33PM -0700, Chris Anderson wrote: > CouchDB core should remain focused on reliability and performance on a > single node. I disagree pretty strongly with this. Focusing on single node performance is a good short term goal, but saying that multi-node environments are less important is antithetical to the core goals of CouchDB. Without sounding like a dick, the clue is in the name: Cluster of Unreliable Commodity Hardware. I'm not aware that this vision of a distributed database has been abandoned. > There is a lot of code that can go into monitoring a large cluster, > and our Erlang Lounge will eventually want to provide cluster health > services as well. There are also optimizations (like view row > reshuffling) which are only appropriate on very large clusters, so > they should not be part of the core project, but we want to encourage > their development. > > The modularity we'll get from being able to deploy the most > appropriate combination of nginx, twisted python, erlang, etc to > monitor a cluster will serve us well in the long run, I hope. I think it's a bit more nuanced than this. Like the essay I referenced in my first post, we don't want people to be overwhelmed by too many choices. We should figure out what works best for most people, and roll that in. > I guess part of what it means to bring in a sub-project is an > acknowledgment that the project we're bringing in reflects CouchDB's > goals and architecture, but might not be appropriate to deploy for all > the use cases we want to support. It worries me that we understand the project goals so differently. To the best of my understanding, CouchDB was always intended to be distributed at some point, and I would be interested in hearing what other people think about this, and when, if so, this was abandoned. Best, -- Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater