incubator-couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Paul Davis" <>
Subject Re: the search api?
Date Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:54:57 GMT
Couples posts all at once, I chose to respond to this one strictly
because it included the phrase mental masturbation.

For Chris's not about the stdio json protocol, there's a patch on one
of the jira issues to make this more standardized. Specifically I
think to match the view server output. Not sure if the one blank line
vs. two is the same, but that should be easy (and is a good idea). I
think the important question though is if this is how things are going
to stay. And there are other fine details, but nothing that should
stand in the way of us hacking something together for the time being.

As to Noah's email, well, I really have no idea. If it turns out that
using GPLv3 is fine, then so be it. Otherwise, if we have to use
something else to get "out-of-the-box-search" then so be it.

And because Dean mentioned mental masturbation, I feel that it's my
duty to link to Linus Torvalds' latest headline making email:


On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Dean Landolt <> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Paul Davis <>
> wrote:
>> Noah,
>> See, that's the kicker. I don't by any means want to distribute the
>> bindings. But by virtue of the GPL, if you're code uses, say for
>> instance, the Xapian bindings you're code must be released under the
>> GPL. Ie, by mere virtue of having "import xapian" in your python
>> script it would have to be released under the GPL.
> I'm no IP expert (though I do waste exhorbenant amounts of time studying
> it), but I don't believe that's what puts you on the hook for
> *distribution*(the key phrase to the spell of the GPL). You're not
> responsible for how the
> *xapian* egg got into site-packages, and even if you were (say you had it as
> a requirement in your script), you're still not distributing. Only
> if you include the package that links to the xapian binary as part of your
> distribution would you be on the hook.
> It wasn't until I put that one together that I realized how much I
>> dislike the GPL.
> It's not all bad. But yeah, I'd been on the fence for about this for a
> while, but I'm starting to feel the same way.
> As to the erlang FTI idea, I'd be all for this too. Keeping as much in
>> erlang as possible seems like a good idea to me. It just so happens
>> that one of the short examples in Programming Erlang is about creating
>> such a beast. Granted its small and trivial, but its a place to start
>> from.
> Small and trivial's all I'd even want (the simple FTI implementation in
> pyndexter is what turned me on to it -- it was easy to just get started with
> and see results). But still, the lack of a dead-simple api in couch makes
> toying around with it nothing more than mental masturbation for now. Which
> is fine by me.
>> Now, if anyone wants to go and implement a decent stemmer and
>> all the other whizbang features that people expect from a FTI, I'd
>> probably jump on board with that.
> Luckily stemming (in English at least) is just about picking a known
> algorithm (and implementing, presumably). That would be a great exercise for
> learning Erlang -- something I'd be interesting in taking on when I do take
> that leap (not for at least 6 months I'd imagine).

View raw message