Who would use stdio when a concurrent and HTTP-based alternative was available?
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 7:43 PM, David Hardtke <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Is it possible to support both? The precedence is query servers, where you > can define either a stdio based query_server or a erlang/otp based > native_query_server. Depending on what you are trying to do, these > multiple options come in handy. In fact, it would be really nice to have 3 > options for externals -- stdio, reverse proxy, and erlang/otp. > > Dave > > On 09/24/10 11:10, Paul Davis wrote: >> >> At CouchCamp there was a bit of discussion on replacing the _external >> API with something a bit more modern to give _external processes more >> control over their environment. >> >> The idea was born out of a discussion with Robert Newson who mentioned >> that couchdb-lucene really only needs a reverse proxy to put itself in >> the same URL namespace. It occurred to us that having a reverse proxy >> instead of the current _external stdio protocol would allow lots of >> other interesting features like node.js integration, as well as allow >> implementors to handle requests in parallel and so on and such forth. >> >> The major drawback that was identified was that if we switched to just >> a reverse proxy, people would then be responsible for handling the >> process management of their _external handlers. Ie, they'd have to >> configure daemon monitoring to make sure the processes stayed up and >> what not. The solution we came up with was to include another feature >> that did process management. Ie, something that would bring up an OS >> process when the server booted, and respawn it if it crashed. There'd >> be no connection to the _externals. Other than the basic "just keep a >> process up" sort of behaviour, the only other thing I could see adding >> is a simple stdio protocol to get configuration values from CouchDB. >> Other people have expressed interest in just the process management >> functionality as well which makes me think that having the two new >> features to replace the _external API would be both easier on >> developers as well as providing more functionality. >> >> So now I'm looking for feedback on what other people might think of >> this. I'll start working on this fairly soon if I don't hear any major >> objections. >> >> HTH, >> Paul Davis >> > >
