My mistake :)
----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul Davis" <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com> > To: dev@couchdb.apache.org, "Joan Touzet" <woh...@apache.org> > Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 1:51:33 PM > Subject: Re: On Plugins and Extensibility > > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Joan Touzet <woh...@apache.org> > wrote: > > I've skimmed the entire thread, and it seems like Ilya is trying to > > solve a much bigger problem than Paul has outlined. Ilya's approach > > is > > more all-encompassing but involves a lot of "make-work" just to get > > the > > system back to its current state. Meanwhile, Paul is trying to > > respond > > to some requests for enhancement (presumably coming thru > > IBM/Cloudant) > > and is suggesting just enough functionality to fix that. > > > > Unless there are more developers outside of IBM willing to > > contribute > > code towards Ilya's proposal my guess is that IBM won't approve the > > resources for such a vast change, and I'm not seeing people rushing > > to > > help implement this approach who are well acquainted with the couch > > codebase. > > > > Paul, consider this a vote of support in favour of your proposal, > > subject > > to the concerns already raised. What does Bob have to say? > > > > -Joan > > This is actually in response to the CouchDB Community's concern that > the number of extension points being defined in the config files was > growing to the point where it was confusing and misleading since > they're a mostly different type of configuration. This lead to the > vendor specific plugin proposal that was accepted as a good approach > at solving that issue. Ilya did some work on this via plugerl. When > reviewing that I realized that we have at least three places > (couch_stats, chttpd handlers, plugerl, and I keep thinking I'm > forgetting one more) where we have roughly the same issue of trying > to > connect various parts of the code base in a configurable manner (at > the release level). So rather than have three different approaches I > thought it'd be useful to take a step back and try and design > something that could solve each of these cases in a single spot > rather > than having multiple implementations of roughly the same > functionality. > > So no, this isn't motivated by IBM. Its motivated by not wanting to > have three implementations of basically the same thing in CouchDB. >
