On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Paul Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 1:46 AM, Antony Blakey <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> On 19/01/2009, at 3:51 PM, Paul Davis wrote: >> >>> There can be many _external processes for a single definition. So, not >>> only are requests not serialized, they can be concurrent etc. >> >> Hmmm. I must be particularly thick today, because my reading of the code has >> a single couch_external_manager creating and maintaining an instance of >> couch_external_server *per* UrlName, with each couch_external_server >> instance corresponding to a single invocation of the external process >> backing that URL. >> >> Where am I going wrong? >> > > Wow. I am the dumb one here. I was just checking it out again as well > to pin down the spot you'd need. Turns out that everything I said > about _external is dead wrong. Though, if it helps, the model I had in > my head is definitely how view server processes work XD > > And now that I just got that into my head I'm scrapping the update > notification side of my couchdb-lucene stuff and running it all from > _external. > > Apologies for wasting everyone's time. >
Not a waste of time. Perhaps on another thread, we should consider enhancements to the db-update-notification process. -- Chris Anderson http://jchris.mfdz.com
