couchdb-marketing mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Giovanni Lenzi <g.le...@smileupps.com>
Subject Re: How do CouchApps fit into the CouchDB story? (Was: CouchDB Articles, Pills and Tutorials Ideas)
Date Wed, 06 May 2015 11:55:01 GMT
However... but I was still wondering... :))

If we fadeout the couchapp name, how can then user refer to this specific
kind of app (an app made with design docs)? Don't you think we and users
will definitely need a name for them?

They could also be:
- design doc app
- design app
- couchdb apps
- couchdb based apps

But they all seem very complicated to me. What do you think?

Couldn't we just leave couchapp, at least for some time, and then let the
time and users feedback speak about it?

Thanks all for this constructive discussion and sorry
for enthusiasm/harassment :))

Sorry Johs if I always misspell your name :)... I 100% agree with you on
"Simplicity always win"
I think ermouth 3 points are the way to go


2015-05-06 10:15 GMT+02:00 Andy Wenk <andy@nms.de>:

> On 6 May 2015 at 07:10, Johs Ensby <johs@b2w.com> wrote:
>
> > Giovanni,
> > on the issue of the death of CouchApps, I think one opportunity is this:
> > CouchApp is (among all the other things that Jan listed) one or a set of
> > design documents
> > We have 2 names for the same thing, approximately
> > My suggestion is to start using ddocs, design docs or design documents
> and
> > let CouchApp fade out by itself, no killing needed
> > Jan,
> > I like the suggestion to separate CouchApps into a separate project. That
> > should start with
> > A defined target group
> > Clear design goals
> > A rigid plugin architecture
> >
> > The idea that I find very powerful is
> > Let the functionality follow the data
> > Databases have had stored procedures for ages, but what database provided
> > a methodology for letting functionality piggyback the data as easily as
> in
> > CouchDB?
> > Could there be a sweet spot between “convenience functionality” for
> > advanced developers and what would be attractive to novice developers and
> > developers looking for a minimalistic tech stack?
> >
> > Thanks for listing the pioneers, Jan. Would anyone care to complete the
> > list of people that took CouchApps to the extreme and would be good
> > candidates for a roundtable on design goals for its future?
> > Caolan McMahon of Kanso @caolan <https://twitter.com/caolan>
> > Dale Harvey of PouchDB @daleharvey <https://twitter.com/daleharvey>
> > Gregor Martynus of Hoodie @einfachsmart <
> https://twitter.com/einfachsmart>
> > Ermouth of Cloudwall @ermouth <https://twitter.com/ermouth>
> > Giovanni of Smileupps @smileupps <https://twitter.com/smileupps>
> >
>
> jan lehnardt https://twitter.com/janl
> chris anderson https://twitter.com/jchris (not active anymore in this
> area)
> benoît chesneau https://twitter.com/benoitc (probably not active anymore
> in
> this area)
>
> Cheers
>
> Andy
>
>
> >
> > Johs
> >
> > > On 05 May 2015, at 22:35, Giovanni Lenzi <g.lenzi@smileupps.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Agree with Andy.. why change a name of something that is born with
> > couchdb,
> > > lives in couchdb and runs only inside of it?
> > >
> > > Dropping name or removing it won't simply be understood by users and
> > > industries already relying on it. imho negative impact could be very
> > high..
> > > and I'm afraid this could really lead to a new second death for the
> > > project, after the first one with the damien katz retirement issue...
> > >
> > > all of the above can't be justified with only some naming conflicts,
> even
> > > considered that couchapp tools and also couchappy project have changed
> > > their name just to prevent it
> > >
> > > More than a naming confusion, i'm aware of a lack of clarification
> about
> > > what can and cannot be done, supported by facts, real examples and
> > > eventually benchmarks
> > >
> > > Furthermore, so far on social networks I have seen more focus on what
> > > cannot be done, instead of the contrary.. and I can well understand
> users
> > > can be afraid and confused by this.
> > > Il giorno 05/mag/2015 20:33, "Andy Wenk" <andywenk@apache.org> ha
> > scritto:
> > >
> > >> On 5 May 2015 at 18:44, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>>> On 05 May 2015, at 18:37, Andy Wenk <andywenk@apache.org>
wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> As often, here are many truths in all the replies. I see myself
just
> > >>>> jumping in from the side because I don't actually use CouchApps.
I
> > have
> > >>>> full respect for people like Giovanni  who want to keep CouchApps
> > >>> 'alive'.
> > >>>> So I think the plan Jan wrote done can work quite good also for
me.
> > >> Here
> > >>>> are my comments:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 5 May 2015 at 17:39, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Thanks for bringing up naming and design docs!
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> There are a few angles here, that make it harder for me to
think
> > about
> > >>>>> this. I’ll try to spell it all out.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Design Docs: The learning curve of design docs is really, really
> > steep
> > >>> and
> > >>>>> the usability is so bad, that we need third-party tools to
work
> > around
> > >>> this.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> When we met in Boston a couple of years ago, we agreed that
we
> should
> > >> be
> > >>>>> addressing this. Mango is the first concrete step into a future
> where
> > >>>>> CouchDB indexing is more of an API and less of a “compile
JS into
> > JSON
> > >>> into
> > >>>>> a doc with a weird name”. I believe that this is the way
forward.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I think everything that is in a ddoc could equally be hidden
behind
> > an
> > >>> API
> > >>>>> like mango does. Under the hood, it’s still design docs,
but the
> > >>> interface
> > >>>>> would be A LOT more friendly.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> With 2.0 and Mango I’d hope that 90% of our users don’t
have to
> touch
> > >>>>> ddocs anymore for basic CouchDB querying. I’d love to extend
this
> to
> > >>>>> document update validations and filters as well.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> (See, now this turns into a future-of-couchdb discussion, sorry
> about
> > >>>>> that).
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> With nice APIs for all core features, there’d be less need
for a
> tool
> > >>> that
> > >>>>> manages design docs.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> What CouchApps can *do* today, would, however, still be possible.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Which brings me to naming.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> CouchApp is:
> > >>>>> - a python tool
> > >>>>> - a nodejs tool
> > >>>>> - is implemented in the erlang tool erica
> > >>>>> - is a concept of how to put a *very specific type of app*
into
> > >> CouchDB
> > >>>>> - a domain couchapp.com/.org
> > >>>>> - a way to manage design documents (which have their own problems,
> > see
> > >>>>> above)
> > >>>>> - the second thing people get to hear, when they ask about
how do I
> > >>> query
> > >>>>> CouchDB?
> > >>>>> - a lose collection of features inside CouchDB that all have
> > problems:
> > >>>>> - rewrite: not flexible enough, web devs expect more options
for
> > >> routing
> > >>>>> - show/list/update/filter/validate: terrible performance
> > >> characteristics
> > >>>>> - map/reduce views: complicated (yet powerful), mediocre
> performance
> > >>>>> characteristics
> > >>>>> - an url slug in our documentation:
> > >>>>> http://docs.couchdb.org/en/1.6.1/couchapp/
> > >>>>> - this creates an unfortunate hierarchy, yes, all the things
in
> this
> > >>>>> section are parts of the CouchApp idea, but e.g. doc update
> > >> validations
> > >>> are
> > >>>>> a valid concept even if you need nothing else from the CouchApp
> idea.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> This is very very very very confusing and we need to clean
it up.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> * * *
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I very much sympathise with ermouth’s story-of-couchapp email.
I’ve
> > >> been
> > >>>>> through similar steps and everyone I know who has taken CouchApps
> to
> > >> an
> > >>>>> extreme (Caolan McMahon of Kanso, Dale Harvey of PouchDB, Gregor
> > >>> Martynus
> > >>>>> of Hoodie, just to name a select few) all have similar stories.
> > >>> CouchApps
> > >>>>> appear genius at first, until you try to build a wide range
of
> things
> > >>> with
> > >>>>> them.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> At this point, I’m no longer interested what neat things
can be
> done
> > >>> with
> > >>>>> CouchDB, but I want to make sure we polish the core features
as
> much
> > >> as
> > >>> we
> > >>>>> can so they are easy to understand and use and don’t bring
> surprises
> > >>>>> operationally.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I don’t mean to kill the concept of CouchApps, but the situation
> > today
> > >>> is
> > >>>>> very damaging to our user-adoption rate. I’m more than happy
to
> keep
> > >> the
> > >>>>> functionality around, because I see there is merit in having
it.
> But
> > >>> *most*
> > >>>>> CouchDB users I see, shouldn’t not be confused with whatever
> > >> “CouchApp”
> > >>>>> means when they just want a database that replicates, when
they
> want
> > >> to
> > >>> put
> > >>>>> their data where they need it.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> So yeah, sorry, I don’t think this should be a recruiting
vehicle
> for
> > >>>>> CouchDB.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Here is a scenario that I can see working:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 1. establish the idea of applications-in-couchdb as a standalone
> > >> project
> > >>>>> (can be part of ASF CouchDB) with a name that doesn’t have
“couch”
> in
> > >>> it.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> yes - but I don't understand why we can't keep the name CouchApp.
> > >>>
> > >>> My main point here is that “couchapp” is too overloaded as a term
and
> > >>> really hard to change the meaning of, or reduce the meaning of to
> that
> > >>> one specific thing that we want it to be.
> > >>>
> > >>> And even *if* CouchApp could just mean “the concept of having apps
in
> > >>> your CouchDB”, it’d still confuse those users, that think that’s
the
> > >>> only way to use CouchDB and they walk away.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> To be honest, I am not aware that it is such a big problem but as you
> > are
> > >> way more in contact with users, I take it for granted.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> I don’t think CouchApps 2.0 is going to help. Especially with CouchDB
> > >>> 2.0 coming up, I see even more confusion and less clarity.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> My thought was this: we celebrate both CouchDB 2.0 and CouchApp 2.0
> and
> > >> hammer as long as needed on the point how we want CouchApps to be
> seen.
> > I
> > >> thought it's a great chance to clearly separate the two different
> things
> > >> when CouchDB 2.0 is released. But I know it is tremendously difficult
> to
> > >> achieve the wanted result communication wise. Maybe the task is too
> > heavy
> > >> but I can remember various projects that said "Since version x.y we
> > decided
> > >> to separate this and that from the main project". But I also admit
> that
> > I
> > >> also remember that it still was needed to clarify the situation
> > afterwards
> > >> for some folks ('Why is this not there anymore?' .... 'They dropped it
> > in
> > >> 2.0' ... 'Ah ok - did not know').
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>> We have that name and we have a domain for it.
> > >>>
> > >>> I mentioned diminishing returns, just because we invested in
> something
> > >>> that doesn’t mean it makes sense holding on to it for the future.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> sure not ;-). My intention is to keep it so that's the reason why I
> > promote
> > >> my idea sustained. But that's the point of view I have at the moment
> > and I
> > >> don't insist on it. If we find the common consensus that we should let
> > the
> > >> term CouchApp die, that's ok with me.
> > >>
> > >> All the best
> > >>
> > >> Andy
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks for your support on the other points.
> > >>>
> > >>> Best
> > >>> Jan
> > >>> --
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> As I said before, we have to clarify
> > >>>> extremely well what the project folks think about CouchApps. I
could
> > >>>> imagine to let Giovanni work on that page with our support.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> 2. provide APIs for all design-doc-features, so we don’t
need extra
> > >>>>> tooling with CouchDB (maybe a little bit like couchdb-cli that
> > >>> rkowalski is
> > >>>>> toying with, but we’d ship that with CouchDB)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> yes
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> 3. Turn all 1.x-level CouchApp features (shows, lists, updates,
> > >> vhosts,
> > >>>>> rewrites) into a plugin (can be installed by default, and maybe
> later
> > >>> not).
> > >>>>> The plugin then can evolve independently from CouchDB and implement
> > >> e.g.
> > >>>>> more efficient list functions.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> yes
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> 4. publicly celebrate the retirement of all things “CouchApp”
with
> > >>>>> pointers on couchapp.org/.com to where the things “CouchApps”
were
> > >> used
> > >>>>> for are available now, without confusion.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The story then is:
> > >>>>> - In 1.x some parts of the CouchDB API were too complicated,
we had
> > to
> > >>>>> have a tool for it.
> > >>>>> - The tool also allowed to build standalone web applications
that
> > >> solely
> > >>>>> live in CouchDB.
> > >>>>> - All this is now available elsewhere under these new names:
X, Y,
> Z.
> > >>>>> - R.I.P. CouchApps.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I still don't understand why we have to bury CouchApp, but maybe
I
> am
> > >>>> missing some key thoughts here. Imho we could also tell:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> - In 1.x some parts of the CouchDB API were too complicated, we
had
> to
> > >>> have
> > >>>> a tool for it.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> - The tool also allowed to build standalone web applications that
> > >> solely
> > >>>> live in CouchDB called a CouchApp.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> - We realised that this approach was resulting in some problems
and
> > >>> decided
> > >>>> to move them out of CouchDB.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> - All this is now available as (e.g.) Plugins at couchapp.org and
> is
> > >>> called
> > >>>> CouchApp 2.0
> > >>>>
> > >>>> - We had a good idea, learned and decided that it is better to
give
> > >>>> CouchApps it's own environment
> > >>>>
> > >>>> TL;DR; we learned form the first attempt and the result is a own
> place
> > >>> for
> > >>>> CouchApps. We have the name, we have the domain and what we need
is
> > >>>> clarification (sorry for repeating myself).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thoughts?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Cheers
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Andy
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> * * *
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> We have talked about focussing the CouchDB message and we agreed
> that
> > >>>>> replication and its ecosystem are the prime story to tell.
I
> believe
> > >>>>> CouchApps are a huge distraction from that story and we should
own
> to
> > >>>>> retire it.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> * * *
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> So far my thoughts. I realise people have invested a lot in
> CouchApps
> > >> (I
> > >>>>> know I have for 5+ years), but we have to be looking out for
> CouchDB
> > >> and
> > >>>>> see where we run into diminishing returns. It took me more
than
> half
> > a
> > >>>>> decade to learn that CouchApps harm CouchDB more than they
help. We
> > as
> > >>> the
> > >>>>> project shouldn’t focus on what is technically neat/cool,
but how
> we
> > >> can
> > >>>>> get more people to use our project because it fits their needs
and
> is
> > >>>>> easily accessible. We have many other fronts to fight to get
this
> > >> right,
> > >>>>> but with CouchApps, we have a foot firmly on a break when it
comes
> to
> > >>>>> making CouchDB more accessible.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> * * *
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I know this is a lot to take in. Take your time. You might
want to
> > >>> refrain
> > >>>>> from knee-jerk-replies of the “but but but CouchApps are
cool…”
> type.
> > >> I
> > >>>>> understand. I think they are cool too.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Best
> > >>>>> Jan
> > >>>>> --
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> On 05 May 2015, at 16:52, Johs Ensby <johs@b2w.com>
wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Cudos to Giovanni for CouchApp enthusiasm
> > >>>>>> and to Ermouth for harsh critisim
> > >>>>>> to Jan and Andy for addressing the “story” level
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> In spite of its many shortcomings, I still believe couchApps
could
> > be
> > >>>>> the big recruiter for CouchDB.
> > >>>>>> The fact that you can make a design document, direct a
vhost to
> its
> > >>>>> _rewrite and there create your api for accessing multiple databases
> > >> with
> > >>>>> various access levels and multiple design documents is awesome.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The main storytelling problem is the overselling as Ermouth
points
> > >> out.
> > >>>>>> The overselling starts with the name itself, it should
not have
> > “app”
> > >>> in
> > >>>>> it.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The concept of a CouchDB app is wrong.
> > >>>>>> The “app” that a million young developers are waiting
to create
> > lives
> > >>> in
> > >>>>> the client.
> > >>>>>> They need to learn some CSS and a Javascript framework,
and
> CouchDB
> > >> is
> > >>>>> the only backend they will need until they find out that they
need
> > >> more
> > >>> in
> > >>>>> addition to CouchDB.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> We should quit telling the story about CouchApps and start
telling
> > >> the
> > >>>>> story of design docs.
> > >>>>>> CouchDB design documents are great.
> > >>>>>> At least as long as we keep it simple.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Our quest should be for powerful simplicity.
> > >>>>>> Simplicity always win.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Johs
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On 05 May 2015, at 11:49, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org>
wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On 05 May 2015, at 11:08, Andy Wenk <andywenk@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Hi,
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Jan thanks for raising this important topic!
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> As I had been around and participated when JChris,
Jan and
> others
> > >>>>> started
> > >>>>>>>> CouchApps and Benoit took over the work, I am a
bit sad, that
> > >>> CouchApps
> > >>>>>>>> started to confuse people. And yes it is true,
they are limited
> > but
> > >>>>> have
> > >>>>>>>> their place in the history of CouchDB. Far more,
it can easily
> be
> > >>> seen
> > >>>>> as
> > >>>>>>>> the evolutionary basis for Hoodie and that is a
good thing imho.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> We should give CouchApps a place to live in the
CouchDB
> ecosystem
> > >>> (not
> > >>>>>>>> meant technically). So my proposal is to reactivate
> couchapp.org
> > >> and
> > >>>>> write
> > >>>>>>>> one page with info about
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> * what CouchApps are
> > >>>>>>>> * how one can create one (links to doku)
> > >>>>>>>> * what alternatives there are (kanso, hoodie ...)
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Furthermore we should include a link on couchdb.org
to
> > >> couchapp.org.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I think it would be wrong to leave people still
in the dark even
> > >>> though
> > >>>>>>>> nowadays we think, CouchApps is not the way one
should create a
> > >>> WebApp
> > >>>>>>>> based on CouchDB (and I don't think the approaches
to create
> > >>> CouchApps
> > >>>>> was
> > >>>>>>>> foolish Jan ;-)). It is our responsibility to clarify
what
> > >> CouchApps
> > >>>>> are
> > >>>>>>>> and why one should move forward to sth. better.
With
> clarification
> > >>>>> comes
> > >>>>>>>> clarity
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Thanks Andy! — I’m all for the things you mention,
once we figure
> > >> out
> > >>>>> how
> > >>>>>>> the CouchApps story fits into the larger CouchDB story
without
> > >>> confusing
> > >>>>>>> anyone.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> What’s your take on that? :)
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> * * *
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Also, I think we shouldn’t be afraid to make CouchApp’s
place in
> > >>>>> CouchDB’s
> > >>>>>>> history clear in terms of “This was an idea of its
time. Today,
> we
> > >>> think
> > >>>>>>> differently. RIP CouchApps”.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Best
> > >>>>>>> Jan
> > >>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> All the best
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Andy
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On 5 May 2015 at 10:54, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org>
wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> It seems we have a separate discussion going
on here, so I
> forked
> > >>> the
> > >>>>>>>>> thread.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I’ve seen these two sides ever since we invented
CouchApps:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Pro:
> > >>>>>>>>> - CouchApps are amazingly simple
> > >>>>>>>>> - CouchDB as an app server is a great idea,
I don’t need to run
> > >> any
> > >>>>> other
> > >>>>>>>>> infrastructure
> > >>>>>>>>> - this is the future of web development
> > >>>>>>>>> - couchapp* is a great tool to manage design
docs
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> (*or erica… etc.)
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Con:
> > >>>>>>>>> - the concept of compiling design docs is confusing
> > >>>>>>>>> - even when they get it, they are confused
that they need a
> third
> > >>>>> party
> > >>>>>>>>> tool called `couchapp` to do so, because the
documentation
> talks
> > >>> about
> > >>>>>>>>> building full apps in CouchDB, they have an
external app and
> just
> > >>>>> want to
> > >>>>>>>>> use CouchDB as a database, but couchapp is
still the tool they
> > >> need.
> > >>>>>>>>> - the tooling is poor
> > >>>>>>>>> - the tooling is all third-party
> > >>>>>>>>> - they can only cover a very limited use-case
> > >>>>>>>>> - CouchApps are the only way to use CouchDB
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I see a number of people being passionate about
CouchApps and I
> > >>>>> believe
> > >>>>>>>>> their enthusiasm is warranted, CouchApps are
a neat idea.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> But I also see a greater number of people being
confused by
> > >>> CouchApps
> > >>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>> in turn by CouchDB.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> That is not a good situation.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Let’s think about how (and if) we can fit
the CouchApp story
> into
> > >> a
> > >>>>>>>>> coherent CouchDB story.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> A prerequisite for that is having a coherent
CouchDB story,
> which
> > >> we
> > >>>>> don’t
> > >>>>>>>>> have fully finalised yet, but we have talked
about extensively,
> > >> and
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>> consensus is around the “Data where you need
it” narrative that
> > >>>>> emphasises
> > >>>>>>>>> replication between CouchDB instances and other
projects that
> > >> speak
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>> replication protocol (especially PouchDB and
TouchDB).
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> How do CouchApps fit into that narrative?
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> * * *
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> (Personal view alert: this is just to give
some more background
> > on
> > >>> my
> > >>>>> own
> > >>>>>>>>> position, this isn’t meant as a basis for
discussion)
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I’m personally conflicted. When we set out
to develop
> CouchApps,
> > >> we
> > >>>>>>>>> thought we are inventing a new paradigm for
how to build the
> web,
> > >>> and
> > >>>>>>>>> everybody would follow us, because that would
enable a true p2p
> > >> web.
> > >>>>> That
> > >>>>>>>>> didn’t happen and probably was a little foolish
of us :D
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Technically, that would have meant CouchApps
had to grow a lot
> > >> more
> > >>>>> and I
> > >>>>>>>>> realised quickly that CouchDB is not the right
place to grow
> such
> > >> a
> > >>>>> thing.
> > >>>>>>>>> In addition, there are various fully fledged
web frameworks
> > >> already
> > >>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>> CouchApps could never really compete in terms
of person-power
> and
> > >>>>> attention.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> That all led me to re-evaluate the whole value
proposition,
> when
> > >>>>> things
> > >>>>>>>>> like PouchDB came up and the browser became
a decent
> application
> > >>>>>>>>> development platform. That whole thinking led
to the creation
> of
> > >>>>> Hoodie (
> > >>>>>>>>> http://hood.ie), which started out with the
code name CANG
> > (Couch
> > >>>>> Apps
> > >>>>>>>>> Next Generation), where we liked some of the
core ideas of
> > >>> CouchApps,
> > >>>>> but
> > >>>>>>>>> wanted to address the limitations that would
stifle their
> > >> adoption.
> > >>>>> Hoodie
> > >>>>>>>>> embraces browser-to-server sync to allow fully
offline apps, it
> > >>> allows
> > >>>>>>>>> all-javascript-all-json development on the
front- and back-end.
> > It
> > >>>>> uses the
> > >>>>>>>>> database-per-user and the _changes-feed-as-async-worker
> paradigms
> > >>> and
> > >>>>> it is
> > >>>>>>>>> all wrapped into a package that is *really*
easy to understand
> > and
> > >>> get
> > >>>>>>>>> started with. Hoodie, unlike CouchApps, does
have a fighting
> > >> chance
> > >>> of
> > >>>>>>>>> making CouchDB’s unique features (replication,
_changes)
> > available
> > >>>>> for a
> > >>>>>>>>> larger population and I’m infinitely excited
about that.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> * * *
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> All that doesn’t mean, however, that CouchApps
don’t have their
> > >>>>> place, but
> > >>>>>>>>> again, I’m not sure where that place is and
the place it
> > currently
> > >>> has
> > >>>>>>>>> seems to negatively affect CouchDB, so I’d
like for this list
> to
> > >>>>> think and
> > >>>>>>>>> talk about all that for a bit.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> How can we make it that CouchApps strengthen
CouchDB and not
> > >> weaken
> > >>>>> it by
> > >>>>>>>>> adding confusion?
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> How do CouchApps fit into the CouchDB story?
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Best
> > >>>>>>>>> Jan
> > >>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> On 05 May 2015, at 08:45, ermouth <ermouth@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> CouchDB-killing answers
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Well... When someone says couchapps is
silver bullet – I say
> > ‘No’
> > >>>>> and I
> > >>>>>>>>> can
> > >>>>>>>>>> prove it. Couchapps have a lot, A LOT of
problems, and some of
> > >> them
> > >>>>> can
> > >>>>>>>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>>> be solved inside CouchDB. For example,
try to implement ACL
> for
> > >>>>>>>>> attachments
> > >>>>>>>>>> or try to scale couchapp. You just can‘t
do it in reasonable
> > way.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> I know several engineers who tried out
couchapps – and left
> > >> CouchDB
> > >>>>>>>>>> forever. Not because CouchDB itself, but
because couchapps.
> > >>> O‘Reilly
> > >>>>> said
> > >>>>>>>>>> it‘s a silver bullet, others said –
and what we have? Sloppy
> and
> > >>>>>>>>>> hard-to-debug architecture, that does not
scale, has no
> tooling
> > >> and
> > >>>>> a lot
> > >>>>>>>>>> of security issues.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> You gonna solve architecture problems with
positive posts?
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> What I want to say – there is no need
to lie and say couchapps
> > >> are
> > >>>>> great.
> > >>>>>>>>>> Because they are not.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> would you like to write down some of
your positive:-))
> > >>> experiences?
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> http://ermouth.livejournal.com/tag/couchdb
– sorry, Russian
> > >>>>> language.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> ermouth
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> > >>>>>>>>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>> Andy Wenk
> > >>>>>>>> Hamburg - Germany
> > >>>>>>>> RockIt!
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> GPG fingerprint: C044 8322 9E12 1483 4FEC 9452
B65D 6BE3 9ED3
> 9588
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/andywenk.asc
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> > >>>>>>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/<
> > >>>>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> --
> > >>>>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> > >>>>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Andy Wenk
> > >>>> Hamburg - Germany
> > >>>> RockIt!
> > >>>>
> > >>>> GPG fingerprint: C044 8322 9E12 1483 4FEC 9452 B65D 6BE3 9ED3 9588
> > >>>>
> > >>>> https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/andywenk.asc
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> > >>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Andy Wenk
> > >> Hamburg - Germany
> > >> RockIt!
> > >>
> > >> GPG fingerprint: C044 8322 9E12 1483 4FEC 9452 B65D 6BE3 9ED3 9588
> > >>
> > >> https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/andywenk.asc
> > >>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Andy Wenk
> Hamburg - Germany
> RockIt!
>
> http://www.couchdb-buch.de
> http://www.pg-praxisbuch.de
>
> GPG fingerprint: C044 8322 9E12 1483 4FEC 9452 B65D 6BE3 9ED3 9588
>
> https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/andywenk.asc
>

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