That's essentially what PouchDB has done, yeah?
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Jim Klo <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Nov 5, 2013, at 11:08 AM, Ryan Mohr <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Rethink caught my interest a little while back too. Looks like a well > > designed database and a great collection of tools to support it. > > > > The immediate difference that jumped out at me (and the ultimate reason I > > chose couch over rethink) is that rethink does not and will never support > > master-master replication. See this thread for some background: > > https://github.com/rethinkdb/rethinkdb/issues/1019#issuecomment-19573253 > > > > Both databases are "distributed" but in different respects. CouchDB is > > "distributed" in the same way git is "distributed" (eg we're all equals). > > RethinkDB is "distributed" in the scaling sense (sharding / cluster-wide > > queries) but there is always an authoritative master. > > > > It seems to me that one could build an add-on to any database to support > this I think? I was actually wondering how difficult it would be to build > a 'generic replication api' that leverages the same CouchDB replication > protocol… Has anyone endeavored to try anything like this? It seems like > it should be straight forward. > > In a sense it does feel a lot like BigCouch + MongoDB… > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Mark Deibert <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> @Jim: That _is_ interesting. I read a bit of it, will read more later. > So > >> far it seems like Mongo and Couch had a baby. > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 12:35 AM, Jim Klo <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> Some friends passed this on to me - looks interesting. Wonder if anyone > >>> here has any idea how it compares to CouchDB? > >>> > >>> http://rethinkdb.com > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> > >>> - Jim > >>> > >>> Jim Klo > >>> Senior Software Engineer > >>> SRI International > >>> t: @nsomnac > >>> > >> > >
