What advantages does BigCouch have over Lounge? Lounge seems fairly simple which is a big plus, but since Cloudant is using BigCouch in their commercial product that looks like a bigger plus.
Do either of these solutions take advantage of new features like replication filters? What is the direction of internal CouchDB development in regards to "complete" partitioning functionality? Is the need for Lounge or BigCouch (for many use cases) really a clue that if I need a completely partitioned distributed database I should look at something like Cassandra (do not like)? I'm sorry if you are tired of answering this question. Please consider just ignoring it until you are in a really good mood. That could be two weeks down the line if you like, or never. Also, I know this could be on the user list, but I am asking here because I want to know what CouchDB internal developers think of the options and the direction for the future. Also, here is a tiny virtual representation of me which you can imagine stabbing in the eye with a tiny pencil, if that helps: O \|/ | / \ -- View this message in context: http://couchdb-development.1959287.n2.nabble.com/BigCouch-vs-CouchDB-Lounge-vs-Cassandra-tp5501938p5501938.html Sent from the CouchDB Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
