Alan Bell wrote:
> Noah Slater wrote:
>> What actual problem would this solve?
>>
> well I think that is the discussion point. It certainly raises a few
> interesting thoughts. One of the suggestions was a couchdb process per
> user. Not quite sure about this one, sounds like it might not scale well
> with multiple users. One database per user might well be handy. It could
> perhaps replace the gconf database.
Well, gconf has its own API and should probably be "up" even in bad
situations like a full disk or when the OOM killer starts spraying
bullets into the process space. But yeah, totally. IMO if CouchDB is
really well-suited for a large class of web apps then it similarly
well-suited for desktop apps, since nowadays desktop apps are
Internet-aware. (The whole point of Adobe AIR is to build web-aware
desktop apps using Internet technologies.)
> If it could do everything for a user, perhaps even with a FUSE
> filesystem pointing at the users database mounted at /home/user then the
> replication between machines would be quite cool, particularly for laptops.
I don't know how that would perform, not to mention in the case of
random-access, but I betcha that there would be fewer files to
synchronize in the first place if more apps stored (at least) their
metadata in a database.
(To play Devil's advocate, my argument could be made for MySQL too and
we don't see that happening. Some might say that it's just a bad idea,
but I would still argue that Linux desktop developers are simply
uncreative.)
--
Jason Smith
Proven Corporation
Bangkok, Thailand
http://www.proven-corporation.com
|