Hello Joan!!
On 11/07/19 8:02 AM, Joan Touzet wrote:
Hi Chintan,
On 2019-07-10 12:40 p.m., Chintan Mishra wrote:
On 10/07/19 9:55 PM, Chintan Mishra wrote:
On 09/07/19 9:33 PM, Joan Touzet wrote:
Hi Chintan,
Reading through your proposal, I have one main point to make.
At the Apache Software Foundation, the people who lead the projects
are
the people who do the work on them. We use the wrong word
"meritocracy"
to explain this principle; a better word would be "do-ocracy."
http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#decision-making
https://incubator.apache.org/guides/participation.html#as_a_developer
https://communitywiki.org/wiki/DoOcracy
That means that your project can completely proceed on its own if it
wants to; the only thing over which you're not in control is whether
that project gets to call itself CouchDB or not. That decision is
reached by the people who have built CouchDB into what it is today.
I appreciate that you shared these links. I now understand what I
have to do next.
-----
On that last point, there's a lot that would need to be done for
you to
convince the PMC that your vision is the one, true future of CouchDB.
What you propose is both a significant rewrite, as well as
requiring an
entirely new set of skills from the developer base (Rust, MQTT,
Kotlin,
Swift).
From Slack conversations, it appears the community has some
inclination towards building a Rust based CouchDB some day. As for
other technologies those changes are not happening today. I do not
propose to start with all the changes at once. Storage engine is a
good place to start.
[snip]
Have you considered implementing your goals without doing an entire
rewrite at the same time?
Yes. I have considered this prospect.
One of the reasons the FoundationDB project is likely to proceed is
that, by and large, most of the code is being retained. Rewriting the
entire thing in Rust presents a very large number of challenges, not
the least of which is finding developers experienced both in Rust as
well as the minute details of how CouchDB works today.
I'm not saying a full rewrite isn't possible, but it does make your
proposal significantly harder to achieve.
So my counterquestion to you is: if a rewrite wasn't possible, how
would you re-work this proposal so that CouchDB could be made more
friendly for IoT?
I want to support a large set of users experiencing this problem. This
is what I will do:-
1. Create a library to abstract storing data on IoTs using SQLite and
sending this to server.
2. Work on a specification for replication for billion of devices which
anyone can easily use in their applications
What benefits are being attained by a CouchDB user with FoundationDB move?
-Joan
