On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Paul Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:44 PM, tasman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Nov 11, 2008, at 8:02 PM, Burobjorn wrote: > > > >> Hi everybody, > >> > >> My name is Bjorn Wijers and I recently started to play with couchdb. > >> It's a very interesting project and I would like to use it to rewrite an > >> older project called Simuze[1], but I wonder if couchdb would be the > >> right tool for the job. Perhaps some of you can help me out in > >> understanding the pro's and con's of using couchdb for this? > >> > >> Simuze is musicplatform (website) for musicians and music fans by > >> non-profit Stichting (=Foundation) Open Media. Artists can upload their > >> music under a Creative Commons license of their choosing and music > >> lovers can download these songs from the site. It was built quite some > >> time ago in PHP and MySQL. > >> > >> The basics in this application are: > >> > >> - users > >> > >> - profiles (might be multiple per user, since a user may have more than > >> one artist persona) > >> > >> - media files (images and audio for now) > >> > >> - media collections (such as a playlist or album) > >> > >> - ratings (every media file or collection) > >> > >> - tags (everything) > >> > >> Our objective is to rewrite Simuze in such a way that we can distribute > >> it as an 'easy' to install webapplication under a free/open-source > >> license (Affero GPL). We would like to connect all the different Simuze > >> installs (replication would be very helpful for this, I guess) and > >> create a distributed free (as in CC licensed and PD) music web. Think of > >> it as a non-suck MySpace built by musicians ;) > >> > >> Some questions that I have are: > >> > >> 1) Would this type of application be suitable for couchdb or is this > >> better suited by using a RDBMS? > > > > It depends more on "queries", that you will need. > > > >> > >> 2) Could we use the attachment feature for adding media files (FLAC or > >> WAV or AIFF files roughly 50 MB per file) to couchdb? Or is this not > >> advisable given the size of the files? The reasoning behind this is that > >> by using replication we can easily backup the whole system or setup an > >> another node of it. Therefor having everything in one place seems like a > >> good idea? > > > > Saving big attachments into CouchDB sounds like not good idea, i think. > > AFAIK your binary attachments store into CouchDB in base64 encoding, so > > their size increase. And replication mechanism isn't too fast yet. > > > > Please correct me, if it's wrong. > > > > This used to be correct. Attachments no longer have to be base64 > encoded when using the standalone attachments API. One thing I've wondered about was streaming? At some point I want to dump in my mp3 collection and write a simple _external app with a flash music player that could play songs on the fly. My guess is it would work fine with chunked responses, but what about jumping ahead past a buffered point?
