couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon Metson <>
Subject Re: Futon.Next Proof of Concept
Date Thu, 01 Nov 2012 11:01:30 GMT

> Just to explicit my point of view. In erica there is a coming feature call
> hooks that can be applied at any step on the process. In parallel, before
> sending the doc the json will b e put in the .erica/build folder :
> .erica/build/appYYYYMMDD folder (or version if specified) , so any
> transformation can be applied on it.
> Since we are working on a version of erica that could be integrated in
> couch I think it worth to work with it for the next futon. And while we are
> here improve erica to fit your needs.

FWIW I wrote exactly this for situp (the couchapp tool I did a while back). I quickly came
to the conclusion that pushing data to CouchDB was by far the smaller part of the process
and grunt did the rest better. I had pre/post processors that let me call out to external
apps to build markdown, lint js, minify js, compile less, minify css, build docco docs etc.
which all ended up being calls to grunt. The fact that you can push an app into CouchDB from
grunt made situp somewhat irrelevant. 

I know erica has more features than situp (e.g. the web based app builder gui) but I still
prefer grunt+bbb for three reasons:

 1. it does all the build/compile/test/lint stuff today, and is very well tested and documented
 2. it's community is much larger than ours (e.g. its the build tool of jquery)
 3. it enforces some "best practice"

All that said, if erica develops the same (or similar) feature set (notably being able to
push "CouchApps defined in a json file" as well as "CouchApps defined in the file system")
then I don't see a reason to not use it. I have no particularly strong attachment to grunt,
it's just seems to currently be the best tool for the job.

View raw message