couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From J Chris Anderson <>
Subject Re: why erlang?
Date Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:34:38 GMT

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
> 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:

> Chris
>> B.
>> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Randall Leeds <> 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" <> 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
>>> --

View raw message