Jason, I don't mean to be deliberately dense, but how could we, even in principle, write a test that asserts that a map function can't open a socket when there's no method to do so?
Jan, I'm completely on-board with engaging the node community for the reasons you've stated. B. On 31 January 2013 15:43, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jan 31, 2013, at 16:37 , Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jan 31, 2013, at 15:52 , Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Jason Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Paul Davis < >>> [email protected] >>>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That whole process sounds like not a lot of fun. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Right. That is kind of my point. CouchDB is a JavaScript thing, and >>>>> nowadays people have a very well-adopted and well-understood JavaScript >>>>> engine on their computers. Maybe it should just use that. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> couchdb is not a javascript thing, This is a database in which one and >>> the >>>> default engine for M/R is using the language javascript. >>>> >>>> Not all developers have nodejs installed. None of my servers have it. >>> >>> The question is not if you server have it, but whether you could install a >>> compatible version easily. >>> >>> I’d love to hear if you or others are not covered by >>> >>> >>> https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Installing-Node.js-via-package-manager >>> >>> >>> >> Well this is the question somehow. Today when I release rcouch or modified >> bigcouch releases I can build them statically. I then only distribute the >> release without any other dependencies than the system and without >> requiring more rights than a user have most of the time. If not I have to >> make sure I have the correct nodejs etc. > > Why can’t you bundle Node in rcouch? > > >> Also the point is that nodejs isn't so widely deployed or already insyaled >> that some say. > > Yes, I get that. But I contest that premise. The only thing that matters > is whether Node is *available* on these systems. > > > * * * > > I’d like to agree with everyone on the minimal requirements that technically > need to be vetted before we can make a switch. Then see if we can reach that, > and if we do, agree to switch. If we can’t agree on the first thing, all > this discussion is moot. Part of the minimal requirements can be "make sure > that in a later step we can still do X (like embedding or bundling the JS > env)", > but I don’t think we have to have definite answers for these things today, > as long as we don’t block them. > > > Cheers > Jan > -- >
