On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:01 AM, Paul Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > I think you've contradicted yourself. If a URL is the universal name > for a database, then how are we able to server different databases > from the same URL?
The contradiction was intentional. URLs are usually but not always stable. To re-invent a "universal identifier" for a "resource" sounds futile, IMHO. > Tying a database to a URL is merely an artificial limitation because > we haven't thought of anything better. If we *did* think of a way to > uniquely identify databases that didn't break due to ops requirements > then that would be a much better fit to the CouchDB model. It is > difficult but that's because we haven't yet thought of a good way to > deal with what happens OOB when ops teams change server > configurations. All great points. My personal candidate is to look at the rsync protocol. From a foggy memory: * No names, no ids. It's always comparing data against data. * Both sides do normal and rolling checksums (perhaps memorized or incremental map/reduced for couch) * Always 1 round-trip. Receiver sends its checksums to sender, sender sends back the updates. People is interested in CouchDB might find this OLS talk and transcript fascinating. http://olstrans.sourceforge.net/release/OLS2000-rsync/OLS2000-rsync.html -- Iris Couch
