On 02/07/13 22:51, Sean Cribbs wrote:
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 5:34 AM, Toby Corkindale
<toby.corkind...@strategicdata.com.au
<mailto:toby.corkind...@strategicdata.com.au>> wrote:
Riak (and Riak CS and Stanchion) all assume some level of competence
at Erlang. I found Riak was tricky to get running, but had picked up
enough knowledge of Erlang's strange syntax and foibles from working
with RabbitMQ.
This assumption is EXACTLY why we publish our own binary packages. You
don't need to know Erlang to run Riak, and haven't for years. When you
become an advanced user, yes, it is helpful, but it is not strictly
necessary. This is especially true of CS, and I'd much rather get the
bottom of Guy's problem than quibble about how hard Riak is to use
"because Erlang".
Oh, no, I feel you've misunderstood me slightly. I'm not blaming all
difficulties upon Erlang - however the way Erlang is used does bring
some added complexities to the party that can and will confuse people.
In particular, using Erlang syntax for the configuration file, and
outputting errors in the same way.
The configuration format *is* hard to understand, and it's easy to break
it while making what should be simple changes.
Have a look at a typical error thrown by Riak or Riak CS -- it's an
extremely dense Erlang stack trace.
Erlang's clustering requires open networking, or more advanced
configuration if using host firewall.
Don't misunderstand me -- I kinda like Erlang and have seen some great
open source products built upon it.
We are working on exactly these problems, but they are difficult to get
right. Any suggestions on config syntaxes that work well for other
products are appreciated. For now we're looking at a format that
resembles sysctl.
Another common one is the Apache-style, eg.
<Section>
<Subsection>
Key Value
</Subsection>
</Section>
-Toby
_______________________________________________
riak-users mailing list
riak-users@lists.basho.com
http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
