couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Smith <...@proven-corporation.com>
Subject Re: Chance of including CouchDB in Linux distros or desktops?
Date Sat, 07 Mar 2009 01:38:01 GMT
David Reid wrote:
>> Consider DBus, which is a mandatory component of Linux (actually,
>> Freedesktop) desktops, is now understood by all developers, leading to more
>> and more apps talking to each other over DBus.  I suggest that having a
>> document DB built in to all Linux desktops would be true innovation for
>> Linux development (especially since the GNOME pundits want to move to
>> "web-aware" desktops).
>>
> 
> I reject the notion that any (much less all) developers understand DBus.

I'll concede the point.  Maybe DBus isn't appropriate.  Mostly I wanted 
to discuss whether desktop applications could or should use a document 
database instead of custom config files and binary formats.

(In the future!  When it's ready!)

I agree with Noah's warning about "technobunkum."  I disagree that a 
desktop document DB is technobunkum; however since posting the original 
question, I've realized that distros don't embed MySQL like this, and 
even SQLite doesn't have universal adoption among desktop apps.  So that 
forces me to acknowledge that people have voted with their feet.  (Maybe 
"the people" are fools, but whaddayagonnado?)

>> 2. (I'm surprised this doesn't exist already) A DBus CouchDB client API, so
>> that nobody has to learn or use HTTP in their code, just the well-known
>> DBus.
>>
> 
> ... having a DBus couchdb API is a TERRIBLE idea.  It's right up there with
> building an XML-RPC or SOAP bridge to CouchDB.  I promise you that a great
> deal more people understand HTTP than DBus.

Oh, right.  That is why there aren't any language bindings for Couch.  I 
forgot that everybody just uses HTTP :p

Still, DBus is tangential to the main argument.  My concern with a DBus 
API is you need a persistent process translating between DBus RPC calls 
  and HTTP calls.  So all DBus gives you is a language-independent API 
but since Couch has bindings for all major languages (and direct HTTP 
too), I could be persuaded that DBus is not worth the effort.

Having said that, any programmer in any language can learn DBus in a 
day.  But while HTTP and REST is easy enough, hardly any programmer can 
use CouchDB properly without considerable practice.  With CouchDB, the 
API isn't the hard part.  But if programmers haven't already adopted 
SQLite by now, well, that's ominous.

I started out just speculating about the role of CouchDB with desktop 
apps, perhaps even as an arrow in the free desktop's quiver.  "Why not?" 
I said.  Well, I am starting to answer that question I'm afraid!

-- 
Jason Smith
Proven Corporation
Bangkok, Thailand
http://www.proven-corporation.com

Mime
View raw message