> I'd personally *hope* that most people are serving CouchDB directly How does everyone solve the security issue? When I initially looked into using couchdb from the browser I ran into a brick wall because I could figure out no way to keep rogue JS code from trashing the DB. I do access much of the http interface from the browser but I have to go through the app to validate all requests.
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Robert Newson <rnew...@apache.org> wrote: > "I think this is the most common setup." -- I'm not so sure, but I'd > love to get some numbers. > > I'd personally *hope* that most people are serving CouchDB directly > with the possible exception of a generic load balancer like HAProxy. > > B. > > On 6 March 2013 10:54, Dan Santner <dansant...@me.com> wrote: > > I use couchdb as a restful doc persistence. I don't use CouchApp. > > On Mar 6, 2013, at 10:45 AM, Mark Hahn <m...@hahnca.com> wrote: > > > >> I have a node app that does all html serving and my app talks directly > to > >> couch via 127.0.0.1. I think this is the most common setup. > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 8:21 AM, TAE JIN KIM <snoweb...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> There are couple of ways that CouchDB can be used in web development. > >>> > >>> You could deploy your html as attachment in _design in your couch > db..so > >>> actually couchdb could serve your html.... > >>> You could create a kind of proxy middle layer so that this can > communicate > >>> between your presentation layer and your CouchDB due to cross-domain > issue > >>> of Ajax.. > >>> There might be some different way as well.... > >>> > >>> There is no obvious right answer approach here I guess, but just out of > >>> curiosity, would like to hear > >>> how CouchDB is being used in your web environment.... > >>> if you had all of experience as far as deployment is concerned, that > would > >>> be great if you could share for each pros/cons as well... > >>> > >>> Thanks in advance. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > >
