On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Mark Michelson <mmichel...@digium.com> wrote:
> On 04/14/2015 12:11 PM, Matthew Jordan wrote: > >> >> The question is: is this change worth having, or should it be scrapped >> in favour of some alternate approach that makes use of other >> technology? My feelings won't be hurt if the answer is "ditch it and >> do something else" - this was a fun piece of code to right on some >> plane flights. On the other hand, I don't have any real interest in >> writing an alternative approach, so if the expectation is that an >> AstDB wrapper around RabbitMQ or Redis will magically appear if I hit >> the delete key, that expectation is likely to be wrong. >> > > Personally, I like the idea of either > > 2) Allowing the AstDB to use a remote key-value store, thus allowing > multiple Asterisk boxes to share the same store. > I think that it would be best to develop an interface to third-party key-value stores and let them handle the hard bits. Personally, I like CoreOS' etcd, but there are others that could be useful like ZooKeeper, Consul or Redis. -- Jeff Ollie
-- _____________________________________________________________________ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-dev mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
