couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Reid <dr...@dreid.org>
Subject Re: Chance of including CouchDB in Linux distros or desktops?
Date Sat, 07 Mar 2009 02:26:22 GMT
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Jason Smith <jhs@proven-corporation.com>wrote:

> 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


There are so many client libraries with various feature sets because HTTP is
so easy to use and implement.

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.


You overestimate the the competency of programmers.

-David

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