On the server side you can run what ever JavaScript you want, it is far less limited than client side JavaScript. PouchDB also runs on the server and has the exact same issue in terms of seperation of concerns.
PouchDB doesnt expect developers to do dom manipulation, templating, scheduling and other applications features via API's it provides, neither will it ever provide a reverse proxy Pouch and CouchDB can both better integrate with things that do provide reverse proxying and other such features much better though. Here is an example of a simple server that provides a proxy on /proxy, and admin party database on /db and a read only database on /public (it could use either pouchdb or couchdb to provide the databases) https://gist.github.com/daleharvey/bf4e9a94553b75ef2d39 Its far from ideal, but already simpler than attempting the same setup with CouchDB only and far far more extendable. I didnt need to wait for CouchDB to implement any features or discuss their implementation. While CouchDB is your only application platform, there will never be enough functionality in it to fulfill even the basic use cases and people will lean towards better solutions (see mongo + meteor). I very much think a single shot application server is a great idea (see firebase), however I am very much of the opinion that it should be built on top of CouchDB, not into it. On 20 October 2015 at 14:37, Johs. E <j...@b2w.com> wrote: > Hi Dale > I dont understand the “integrate with their use case as best as we > possibly can” when it comes to rewrite and reverse proxy. > As far as I know there is nothing to integrate here. > The joy for PouchDB to be a pure database is very understandable, since it > sits in this rich environment that allow you to do anything. > At the server side CouchDB allows for a very limited portion of javaScript > processing, it would be good if it was less restrictive. > I am not advocating arbitrary application platform functionality. > Just take out some limitations for the javascript crowd out there to love > CouchDB > > Thanks and best regards, > Johs > > > > On 20 Oct 2015, at 11:10, Dale Harvey <d...@arandomurl.com> wrote: > > > > This discussion has gone round and round a couple of times in different > > forms > > so I will avoid repeating my previous points but from working on PouchDB, > > the focus on having 'PouchDB' be a database only is fairly liberating, by > > not trying > > to add fairly arbitrary "application platform" features into the core > > codebase we can focus > > on integrating with what does provide those application platform features > > much better. > > > > Users do not need to wait for reverse proxying or url rewriting to be an > > agreed, implemented > > and maintained feature, they can use the many that already exist and we > > will ensure > > that we integrate with their use case as best as we possibly can. > > > > On 19 October 2015 at 23:57, Harald Kisch <haraldki...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Hi Garren, > >> > >> look at MSSQL (CLR) or ORACLE (JAVA Forms) any database was trying to > >> support their users with markup languages like XML, HTML, etc. for > instance > >> directly out of the database core (performance, simplicity, > >> scalability,..). > >> Lotus Notes did also integrate JavaScript inside of their core (Do you > know > >> which guy did take part of it?). This have different reasons, but one of > >> this reasons is to support users with dynamic mutable data directly into > >> their GUI in JSON format which in my opinion is the fundamental part of > >> CouchDB to be a database for the web. > >> Improvements get lost if we look at others and try not to be different. > In > >> my opinion we should more think about replacing spidermonkey with the > >> google V8 engine and itegrate node completely into the CouchDB core to > >> consume npm-packages directly instead of using them in the local > filesystem > >> outside of CouchDB, where unfortunatelly complexity rise up at scaling. > >> > >> --Harald > >> > >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 9:24 PM, Johs Ensby <j...@b2w.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Garren, > >>> thanks for the "not standing in the way", I hope for more volunteers to > >>> iron out some of CouchDB's old akward wrinkles. > >>> I am all with you for simplification:) ermouth's rewrite function is a > >>> huge simplifier. > >>> > >>> Where I disagree with you is where you say "probably a sign that this > >> idea > >>> is not something worth pursuing". > >>> Whenever you discover that you have a differentiator, it's always a > good > >>> idea to look closely before discaring it and blend in with the rest. > >>> It's all about attracting the next million web developers. > >>> > >>> johs > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> On 19. okt. 2015, at 20.08, Garren Smith <g...@redcometlabs.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I’m really struggling with these proposals. I love the enthusiasm of > >>> everyone but I keep thinking we should rather simplify CouchDB. > >>>> CouchDB is ultimately a database. One with excellent sync > capabilities. > >>> And combining that with libraries like PouchDB and Hoodie make it an > >>> amazing database to build applications with. > >>>> Adding routers and reverse proxies just makes it feel like we trying > to > >>> push CouchDB into being more than it needs to be. > >>>> > >>>> For example building Couchapp like functionality in Node.js is so > >> simple > >>> and way better. Languages like Go also do that really well. Far > superior > >>> than what we can do with a database. > >>>> I would rather let the Node.js and Go web libraries serve content and > >>> let us focus on building a clustered replicating database. We will draw > >>> more people to this community if we can do that properly over creaky, > >> slow > >>> and limited web serving mashed on top of a database. > >>>> If I look at other popular databases, I don’t see any of them serving > >>> web content which is probably a sign that this idea is not something > >> worth > >>> pursuing. > >>>> > >>>> However if there is a burning desire for this and developers raising > >>> their hands to code this functionality, I would not stand in your way. > It > >>> is great to see the varied use of CouchDB out in the wild. > >>>> > >>>> Cheers > >>>> Garren > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On 19 Oct 2015, at 4:47 PM, Johs. E <j...@b2w.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks Andy, > >>>>> I will try and get some use cases up on confluence. > >>>>> As for whoever would pick up the work after ermouth, I have of > course > >>> one big thing on the wish list that goes well with a new router > >> solution.. > >>>>> reverse proxy > >>>>> I remember asking about it when I first started to work w CouchDB and > >>> there were some concerns regarding security. > >>>>> Since then I think node.js has paved the way with content scraping > and > >>> all sorts of outgoing traffic. > >>>>> > >>>>> Has anyone work on a reverse proxy solution for Couch? > >>>>> > >>>>> johs > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 18 Oct 2015, at 21:36, Andy Wenk <andyw...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hey Johs, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> thanks a lot for this. I need some time to dig into it. We need a > >>> place to > >>>>>> write the user stories / use case down. So I suggest we find good > >>> place at > >>>>>> the cwiki. So I suggest to use > >>>>>> > >>> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COUCHDB/Enhancement+Proposals > >>> . > >>>>>> Do you have write access there? If not, please ping me. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Great work! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> All the best > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Andy > >>>>>> > >>>>>> P.S.: Jan already mentioned the feature freeze. Please take it not > >> as a > >>>>>> demotivation but as the possibility to have a bit more time to work > >> on > >>> it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 17 October 2015 at 17:32, Johs Ensby <j...@b2w.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Andy, > >>>>>>> I will make my first use case for function in _rewrite a high level > >>> one: > >>>>>>> to create a standalone server that is an all-in-one DB server, > >>> application > >>>>>>> server, api server and web server. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I have played with the build of CouchDB 2 with rewrite function > >>>>>>> implemented that ermouth put up on the irish AWS community AMI > list > >>> and > >>>>>>> the new use cases are endless. > >>>>>>> First, I find that there are a few things that people fail to > notice > >>> about > >>>>>>> ddocs. > >>>>>>> you need a tool to build a ddoc, editing JSON is not a viable > >> option. > >>> The > >>>>>>> Ddoc Lab of ermouth is in a class of its own. If you havent tried > it > >>> yet, > >>>>>>> do so from http://ddoc.me/ <http://ddoc.me/>. Installing on your > >> own > >>>>>>> couch it is as easy as storing the application, all included as one > >>>>>>> document in any database. Ddoc Lab is a component oriented IDE with > >>> syntax > >>>>>>> checking, less preprosessor and other build tools that let you keep > >> a > >>> well > >>>>>>> organized ddoc as a source project (in one couchdb document) and > you > >>>>>>> publich a ddoc to any target db. > >>>>>>> with this tool you can organize your js modules and templates etc > >> and > >>>>>>> basically... > >>>>>>> set up the API of your application in a ddoc. You can switch > between > >>>>>>> databases and their ddoc functionality based on username, role or > >>>>>>> geolocation and limit access to parts of the Couch API as needed > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This is the method I would recommend to explore powerful simplicity > >>> with > >>>>>>> function in rewrites > >>>>>>> redirect port 80 directly to couch > >>>>>>> set up 2 vhosts, one for public access pointing to > youdb/_design/api > >>> and > >>>>>>> one for sysadm pointing to / > >>>>>>> for admin use Fauxton and Ddoc Lab on the sysadm vhost > >>>>>>> you are set to develop great systems, no big tool stack to learn, > >> just > >>>>>>> bring in whatever js modules you like, the template engine you > like, > >>> the > >>>>>>> router you like, the HTML5 stuff you like.. > >>>>>>> .. or just write some very compact js code in one place where you > >>> ealier > >>>>>>> had to mess around with a whole stack of tools and systems > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> below is the req object that the function takes > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Johs > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The rewrite function has this syntax > >>>>>>> function(req) { > >>>>>>> .. your code that will > >>>>>>> return > >>>>>>> path > >>>>>>> // optional > >>>>>>> headers > >>>>>>> method // you can change this on the fly > >>>>>>> code > >>>>>>> body > >>>>>>> } > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> the function receives this req object > >>>>>>> method > >>>>>>> path > >>>>>>> raw_path > >>>>>>> query > >>>>>>> headers > >>>>>>> Accept > >>>>>>> Accept-Encoding > >>>>>>> Connection > >>>>>>> Host > >>>>>>> Upgrade-Insecure-Requests > >>>>>>> User-Agent > >>>>>>> x-couchdb-vhost-path > >>>>>>> body > >>>>>>> peer > >>>>>>> cookie > >>>>>>> userCtx > >>>>>>> db > >>>>>>> name > >>>>>>> roles > >>>>>>> secObj > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 1. okt. 2015, at 13.40, Andy Wenk <andyw...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Johs, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Yes for sure! That's always great. Maybe you can also write some > >> user > >>>>>>> stories (given when then) or scribble some graphics. Everything is > >>> useful > >>>>>>> and will fasten the process ;-) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Cheers > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Andy > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 1 Oct 2015 12:38, "Johs Ensby" <j...@b2w.com <mailto: > >> j...@b2w.com > >>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> Thanks for this Andy, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I can contribute to the discussion of the feature seen from a user > >>>>>>> perspective. > >>>>>>>> Would it be appropriate to present some use cases? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> best > >>>>>>>> Johs > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 1. okt. 2015, at 12.33, Andy Wenk <andyw...@apache.org > >> <mailto: > >>>>>>> andyw...@apache.org>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Johs, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Let me please show the steps needed. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> * discuss the feature very clearly on the dev@. Please make sure > >>> that > >>>>>>> core > >>>>>>>>> developers as committers with commit bits are involved > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> * code the feature. Make sure to implement tests > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> * send a pull request and show it to dev@ > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> * finally the community will accept or decline the feature (this > >>> will > >>>>>>>>> involve refactoring and changes) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> As Alex said. The PMC or Jan do not decide about the feature. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> All the best > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Andy > >>>>>>>>> On 1 Oct 2015 11:21, "Alexander Shorin" <kxe...@gmail.com > >> <mailto: > >>>>>>> kxe...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Johs Ensby <j...@b2w.com > >> <mailto: > >>>>>>> j...@b2w.com>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> will you welcome ermouths rewrite contribution? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The decision is depends on the implementation. If it will be > >> good, > >>> why > >>>>>>>>>> not? Finally, CouchDB is open source project: we cannot forbid > >>> people > >>>>>>>>>> right for contributions, we only welcome them. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Arguments against couchapps has to do with performance and the > >>> folly > >>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>> competing with node.js. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Performance question for the new _rewrite implementation is very > >>>>>>>>>> depends on query server. Once it can process this kind of > >>> functions, > >>>>>>>>>> you may use something better than JS to gain better performance. > >>> That > >>>>>>>>>> could be Erlang native query server, or luerl-based one, or else > >>> you > >>>>>>>>>> like. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>> ,,,^..^,,, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Andy Wenk > >>>>>> Hamburg - Germany > >>>>>> RockIt! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> GPG fingerprint: C044 8322 9E12 1483 4FEC 9452 B65D 6BE3 9ED3 9588 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/andywenk.asc > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >
