couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Clark Hess <>
Subject Re: Two Concerns
Date Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:51:14 GMT
Thanks Tim.

One more thing I thought of. I don't remember having this impression before,
but as I read the Oreilly Book, it seems that the idea of running Couch on
devices and local computers is a major feature. There are many features
designed to make CouchDB able to function without middleware.

My question is: why? That's what middleware is for...

I mean, it's cool, but it seems to be suffering from the same illness that
rails does - trying to do everything, instead of letting different tools
focus on what they are best at. For example, I'm not going to need a
standalone couch application server in a million years. I need a robust,
distributable database that will be fun to develop in.

So-- is Couch so mature that it's really ready for prime time, and the devs
are bored enough that they are tacking these extra features on, or am I
correct in assuming that these features are distracting the dev team from
making Couch more robust and feature complete as a database server. Maybe
the forced simplicity of Couch means that the devs *shouldn't* add any more
features to the actual db?

Please, please argue with me. I learn best by voicing my concerns and having
people tell me why they're not a big deal.


On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Tim Coffman <> wrote:

> Sean Clark Hess writes:
> > So, I really like couch, but there are two complaints I have read that I
> > would like to resolve.
> I need to add my own concern at this point, having been working with
> CouchDB for a couple months now: the lack of built-in sharding.
> While the Lounge team team have clearly worked very hard, the Lounge
> remains a bolted-on, external solution to a problem which feels like it is
> completely within the project goals of the main CouchDB project.  Until
> CouchDB supports sharding out-of-the-box, it will remain difficult for me to
> recommend it for any heavy-use scenarios.
> You may sense that I've been having some difficulty setting up Lounge, and
> have, in fact, not got it correctly configured even today.  That's a story
> for another post.
> - Tim Coffman

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