couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Randall Leeds <randall.le...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: why erlang?
Date Mon, 16 Aug 2010 20:07:24 GMT
I was actually thinking about inter-node communication yesterday.  As was
pointed out, HTTP inefficiency is mainly in TCP setup and request parsing. I
think the cleanest way to get a boost would not be to add a new API but
utilize Accept and Content-Type headers with a custom mimetype like
beam/eterm to indicate erlang binary terms can be sent directly. This would
eliminate JSON overhead and reduce network bytes while still keeping Couch
well embedded in the web ecosystem with all the middleware advantages that
come with it. Furthermore, authentication can happen in a pluggable way that
does not require erlang cookies, a fully connected network, or epmd ports
like distributed OTP nor do we have to write our own gen_tcp based protocol.

-Randall

On Aug 16, 2010 12:55 PM, "Miles Fidelman" <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
wrote:

Klaus Trainer wrote:
>
> I believe the greatest advantage of HTTP over other more efficient
> protoc...
absolutely


>
> Of course, there might be way more efficient protocols to support P2P
> replication, but the tr...
This is precisely where I see a different protocol being more useful.  I've
avoided using Couch in a couple of large, distributed applications because I
really don't want to bite off the management of large numbers of 2-party
links for replication.  A P2P or multi-cast protocol would avoid that
problem.



Miles


-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In<fnord>  practice, th...

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