couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joan Touzet <woh...@apache.org>
Subject Re: On Plugins and Extensibility
Date Wed, 27 May 2015 19:01:39 GMT
My mistake :) 

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Davis" <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com>
> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org, "Joan Touzet" <wohali@apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 1:51:33 PM
> Subject: Re: On Plugins and Extensibility
> 
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Joan Touzet <wohali@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > I've skimmed the entire thread, and it seems like Ilya is trying to
> > solve a much bigger problem than Paul has outlined. Ilya's approach
> > is
> > more all-encompassing but involves a lot of "make-work" just to get
> > the
> > system back to its current state. Meanwhile, Paul is trying to
> > respond
> > to some requests for enhancement (presumably coming thru
> > IBM/Cloudant)
> > and is suggesting just enough functionality to fix that.
> >
> > Unless there are more developers outside of IBM willing to
> > contribute
> > code towards Ilya's proposal my guess is that IBM won't approve the
> > resources for such a vast change, and I'm not seeing people rushing
> > to
> > help implement this approach who are well acquainted with the couch
> > codebase.
> >
> > Paul, consider this a vote of support in favour of your proposal,
> > subject
> > to the concerns already raised. What does Bob have to say?
> >
> > -Joan
> 
> This is actually in response to the CouchDB Community's concern that
> the number of extension points being defined in the config files was
> growing to the point where it was confusing and misleading since
> they're a mostly different type of configuration. This lead to the
> vendor specific plugin proposal that was accepted as a good approach
> at solving that issue. Ilya did some work on this via plugerl. When
> reviewing that I realized that we have at least three places
> (couch_stats, chttpd handlers, plugerl, and I keep thinking I'm
> forgetting one more) where we have roughly the same issue of trying
> to
> connect various parts of the code base in a configurable manner (at
> the release level). So rather than have three different approaches I
> thought it'd be useful to take a step back and try and design
> something that could solve each of these cases in a single spot
> rather
> than having multiple implementations of roughly the same
> functionality.
> 
> So no, this isn't motivated by IBM. Its motivated by not wanting to
> have three implementations of basically the same thing in CouchDB.
> 

Mime
View raw message