couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r1001283 - in /couchdb/trunk/etc/couchdb: Makefile.am default.ini.tpl.in
Date Tue, 28 Sep 2010 07:10:47 GMT
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Chris Anderson <jchris@apache.org> wrote:

>
> we need to specify the protocol in the file, as you could potentially
> have a single couchdb server listening on multiple ports with multiple
> protocols. (or even on a non-standard port, like https on 8888 or
> something)
>
> so the file could have multiple lines corresponding the the addresses
> the server is listening on.
>
> does that make sense?
>
>

Well this file is here to allow a local application to speak with
couchdb more easily than looking all the pid and associate port on
them. What currently does desktopcouch btw.  I don't see to have the
point to have multiple url here just one for the localhost.

About ssl + non ssl, well I'm currently asking myself if it's good to
have have same server sending the same data encrypted or not. My logic
fails here.

About /var/run vs /var/lib, that just sometimes you gave different
privileges on this folders, giving the possibility to read one or not.
This is not only a question of giving a "state". I'm actually thinking
that we may want to have this info in /tmp path  where we save
generally such info. Dbus does this, mysql does this for the socket
(by default) ...  /tmp is available for everyone. While /var/run  is
working for root apps, it doesn't for apps launched per users. At
first I thought that lib folder was good since the couchdb user have
access to it. But /tmp may be more appropriate so I could do such
scenario :

1. Launch couchdb as benoitc user
2. Let my guest know the port by loocking in /tmp/benoitc-couchdb.url

What do you think about it?

benoit

ps. sorry for late answer, was difficult to find time during jsconf for this.

Mime
View raw message