> potential botnets

Are you telling me that there was a design consideration to keep couch from
being used in a bad way?


On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Max Ogden <[email protected]> wrote:

> security: potential botnets. your other option is to copy whatever api you
> are hitting into couch ahead of time. I think philosophically couch is
> designed to hold data and not access it through limited access APIs
>
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Michael <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I was afraid of that. Right now that is exactly what I am doing, but I
> hate
> > the idea of needing to move an application wherever I replicate the
> > database, which is one of the major reasons I choose Couch. Client site
> is
> > not an option due to choked mobile bandwidth, utter lack of information
> > without the external API.
> >
> > Is there a reason for the no external request rule? Security, technology
> or
> > has it just not been a priority?
> >
> > Thanks for the response,
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Max Ogden <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > CouchDB can't make requests to other domains from a show function. You
> > will
> > > have to put an application layer such as node.js, python flask or ruby
> > > sinatra on top of Couch or do the request in client side javascript to
> > > achieve what you are seeking.
> > >
> > > Max
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Michael <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > This has been a problem I have been looking at for a long time and my
> > > > current solution is not elegant at all, so I am hoping that you all
> > might
> > > > help.
> > > >
> > > > I have a show and I would like to make a request to another API (from
> > > > another domain) from the show, which I would like combine that data
> and
> > > the
> > > > data from Couch into my response. This feels like it should be easy,
> > but
> > > I
> > > > cannot find any examples of this happening.
> > > >
> > > > Any help would be much appreciated.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Michael
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to