couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Smith <...@iriscouch.com>
Subject Re: Branch to switch from SpiderMonkey to Node.js
Date Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:35:57 GMT
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com>wrote:

> Here are some notes following your *enthousiast* mail. There is not
> intention to diminish the work or things like it. It is intended to temper
> a little this enthousiast and trying to find the right approach on the
> problems we are trying to solve.
>

Totally! Like I said, I would never use this code in production. It is a
highly experimental branch. I have a roadmap for this branch; but the real
goal is conversation.


>
>
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Jason Smith <jhs@iriscouch.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Randall Leeds <randall.leeds@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 5:23 AM, Jason Smith <jhs@iriscouch.com>
> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Paul Davis <
> > > paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> That whole process sounds like not a lot of fun.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Right. That is kind of my point. CouchDB is a JavaScript thing, and
> > > > nowadays people have a very well-adopted and well-understood
> JavaScript
> > > > engine on their computers. Maybe it should just use that.
> > >
> > > (Some) developers have node installed (or can install it easily). End
> > > users are a totally different story. They may be able to install it,
> > > but we're talking about adding a runtime dependency unless we bundle
> > > node.
> > >
> >
> >  Quite right. This branch answers half that question: what do you get?
> >
> > So far, this is my list of good things I've seen:
> >
> > 1. Better code.
> > 1a. Cut almost 3,000 lines of code
> > 1b. Exchanged SM build dependency for Node runtime dependency. This right
> > here--this summarizes the whole exercise.
> >
> > 2. Very encouraging degree of compatibility. Consider, the 1,500 lines of
> > view server JS code: none of it was ever intended for Node.js. But the
> test
> > suite shows, the two are virtually identical.
> >
> >  3. Apparently this is already easier to use than homebrew. Homebrew pins
> > SM apparently to support Mongo (unsure if the latter is true).
> >
> > 4. Got a lot of enthusiasm. (A lot of people tested it and emailed to ask
> > "why isn't it faster?"). This thread got a lot of feedback about new
> > protocols, and async APIs, and app-building features. Why? I think when
> you
> > say Node.js and CouchDB everybody says "Yes!"
> >
>
>
> I say "maybe". nodejs is quite trendy. but also quite new and didn't really
> prove anything right now. It is quite surpassed by a pure C thing like
> nginx/uwsgi when it's about http, and when it's about stability by erlang
> or some. I also never had any need of nodejs when it was about doing things
> with couchdb. Differerent approach I guess. Not saying the nodejs is a bad
> one. If it solves your problems or at least is easier for you to handle
> then that's perfectly fine.  One true thing is that javascript is really
> user friendly and this thing is the one that count.
>

I agree about the "trendy" concern. That is part of the cost, for sure.

I am not sure what point you are making, about the http stack and
stability. I believe a pure-node view server can meet your performance and
stability requirements.


> About the number of lines. Well you don't count all the lines in nodejs+v8
> as well ... but the number of loc isn't really an argument I guess.
>
>
> > Imagine you have CouchDB installed and then a future node version
> > > breaks compatibility for some API used by the node-couchjs. You now
> > > have to decide whether to upgrade node or try to have multiple node
> > > versions so couchjs can continue to work.
> > >
> > > In short I think this is my issue: we're pushing problems down from
> > > maintainers and packagers to users.
> > >
> >
> > If you want API stability, then you'll like Node.js. The whole principle
> of
> > the project is to be "finished" one day.
> >
> > Node.js is less likely than Python, say, to break a simple, 300-line repl
> > program. (My point is: not likely.) But yes, you've put your finger on
> it.
> > This is a runtime dependency.
> >
>
> This has nothing with the langage. Considering that a lot of big system are
> running under python. You can also write a view server in python in one day
> as fast as the nodejs server using libuv for example.  or other eventloops
> that didn't wait nodejs to exist.
>

Awesome. Please show us a view server written in Python with libuv,
completed within one day. That will be very informative to this discussion.
We can look at all the working, real-world view server implementations, and
we can compare them.


> > The word "sandbox" is vague. There is no clear definition. (There is a
> > mundane historical reason for that: the "sandbox" was whatever the C
> > program did.)
> >
>
> There have been in previous mails that you ignored. Sandboxing in couchdb
> is about not sharing anything between view and not allowing external I/O
> meaning access to disk or the net. This is why the erlang view engine is
> disabled by default btw.
>

No, I am not ignoring them. I am collecting them. I feel like my list I've
built is a good start but not yet comprehensive.



-- 
Iris Couch

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