2009/2/10 Chris Anderson <jch...@apache.org>: > From my experience, I'm having a hard time seeing how any additional > code could help make the Erlang API "official". The project I'm > working on has a very specific data model (no updates, lots of > parallel attachment writing, using the HTTP API for everything but the > critical path...) and using the Erlang API has allowed me to cut out a > lot of code paths (eg rev checking etc). Doing this wouldn't be safe > for a general purpose API, but when you are interfacing in Erlang, > you're not using a general purpose API anyway.
>From my perspective it would be good to just have a nice documented layer that would allow any native erlang code to hook into couchdb without going over http. Essentially the http layer would then sit on top of the erlang layer and give a nice separation. I suspect that this is more of a tidy up and document rather than anything else. Or at least it should be unless I'm missing something in the code. (<<looks at feet and mumbles>>) > I'm happy to have an Erlang API, but maybe it should wait til sometime > after 0.9. I think the best way to ensure that it's maintained as > stable would be to have an Erlang integration suite, which could > double as documentation. It certainly wouldn't hurt to have more > Erlang tests, so maybe we can file this feature under testing for now, > and hope we get an Erlang test suite created by interested parties. > Once we have the test suite we'll know what the Erlang API is. Sounds good. Cheers -- Kerr
