On 28/01/2009, at 10:35 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
It sure is, as long as the one person can present his ideas to the
community which can accept them verbatim. Alas, this has not
happened yet, so there is nothing to argue about.
Absolutely agree. Right now however the project is moving ahead in
manner that presumes that this *has* happened. That's the basis of my
point. There is no discussion about that vision. Maybe it would get
100% endorsement. Maybe other people might have some ideas that would
adjust or enhance that direction. But right now, there's no chance of
that happening because, as my first email on this point said: Where's
the roadmap, the architectural discussion?
The vision hasn't been handed over to the community. I don't think
it's unreasonable for me to expect that it will be now that it's an
Apache project, and certainly before e.g. an API freeze.
I acknowledge though that I might have closed the issue a little
prematurely and without enough context in my spree to find
0.9 blockers.
_bulk_docs is the only transactional mechanism in CouchDB. Alarm bells
went off when I saw that it was effectively decided to remove that
behaviour. And even in a cluster setup (as opposed to a partition-
tolerant distributed system), it is possible to provide transactional
behaviour. Sure, it's some work, with it's own set of issue, but IMO
the benefit is enormous, and virtually impossible to do outside the
system unless it provides something like an XA interface, which seems
wrong.
Is there some community discussion about whether CouchDB multinode
clusters are going to be partition tolerant?
Antony Blakey
--------------------------
CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
Ph: 0438 840 787
The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way
that will allow a solution
-- Bertrand Russell
