Alan Bell wrote:
Noah Slater wrote:
What actual problem would this solve?
well I think that is the discussion point. It certainly raises a few
interesting thoughts. One of the suggestions was a couchdb process per
user. Not quite sure about this one, sounds like it might not scale well
with multiple users. One database per user might well be handy. It could
perhaps replace the gconf database.
Well, gconf has its own API and should probably be "up" even in bad
situations like a full disk or when the OOM killer starts spraying
bullets into the process space. But yeah, totally. IMO if CouchDB is
really well-suited for a large class of web apps then it similarly
well-suited for desktop apps, since nowadays desktop apps are
Internet-aware. (The whole point of Adobe AIR is to build web-aware
desktop apps using Internet technologies.)
If it could do everything for a user, perhaps even with a FUSE
filesystem pointing at the users database mounted at /home/user then the
replication between machines would be quite cool, particularly for laptops.
I don't know how that would perform, not to mention in the case of
random-access, but I betcha that there would be fewer files to
synchronize in the first place if more apps stored (at least) their
metadata in a database.
(To play Devil's advocate, my argument could be made for MySQL too and
we don't see that happening. Some might say that it's just a bad idea,
but I would still argue that Linux desktop developers are simply
uncreative.)
--
Jason Smith
Proven Corporation
Bangkok, Thailand
http://www.proven-corporation.com
