Return-Path: 
 <dev-return-11340-apmail-couchdb-dev-archive=couchdb.apache.org@couchdb.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 26230 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2010 20:18:55 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3)
  by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 16 Aug 2010 20:18:55 -0000
Received: (qmail 6321 invoked by uid 500); 16 Aug 2010 20:18:54 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@couchdb.apache.org
Received: (qmail 6228 invoked by uid 500); 16 Aug 2010 20:18:54 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:dev-help@couchdb.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@couchdb.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@couchdb.apache.org>
List-Id: <dev.couchdb.apache.org>
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@couchdb.apache.org
Received: (qmail 6202 invoked by uid 99); 16 Aug 2010 20:18:53 -0000
Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 20:18:53 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0
	tests=SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of mfidelman@meetinghouse.net
 designates 207.154.13.48 as permitted sender)
Received: from [207.154.13.48] (HELO server1.neighborhoods.net)
 (207.154.13.48)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 20:18:46 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A044ACC24F
	for <dev@couchdb.apache.org>; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:18:25 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.6.2 (20081215) (Debian) at neighborhoods.net
Received: from server1.neighborhoods.net ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (server1.neighborhoods.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new,
 port 10024)
	with LMTP id aEhVk9-aho2L for <dev@couchdb.apache.org>;
	Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:18:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from new-host-7.home (pool-173-76-134-212.bstnma.fios.verizon.net
 [173.76.134.212])
	by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3B9CDCC210
	for <dev@couchdb.apache.org>; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:18:24 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4C699D0F.6080109@meetinghouse.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:18:23 -0400
From: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US;
 rv:1.9.1.11) Gecko/20100701 SeaMonkey/2.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Subject: Re: why erlang?
References: <W877591856428171281988472@webmail13>
In-Reply-To: <W877591856428171281988472@webmail13>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ryan C. Hill wrote:
> There are plenty examples of why HTTP is great for communicating with clients, but I think Miles is wondering more about communication between one couch-node to another.
>
>    
Exactly!
> The case for HTTP is less clear in that case, but the lack of clarity might only be temporary. Besides the direct benefits of shuttleing bits over plain old HTTP within and between data centers, I can imagine one or two scenarios where replication could be used for communicating with something other than another couch-node (however ill advised that notion might actually be).
>    
I'm looking at large-scale information replication applications - 1000s 
of nodes distributed over a wide variety of network links, some of them 
slow and bouncing.  UUCP (Usenet News) works fine in such an environment.

Couch provides exactly the user/platform level functionality for a class 
of applications I've been working on - but the replication just doesn't 
seem to scale very well (in contrast to something like Cassandra, which 
uses a DHT and a Gossip protocol for replication and node management).

Miles

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In<fnord>  practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra