2 ms·
I mean I both get it, and don't get it. CouchDB is all about master-master, and pouchdb just brings that to the browser. But at the same time I don't understand
by HumanDrivenDev 8y ago
I mean I both get it, and don't get it. CouchDB is all about master-master, and pouchdb just brings that to the browser. But at the same time I don't understand why you'd want a 'master' at the edge of the network, or the overhead of multiple revisions when a users browser isn't going to have tones of concurrent connections.
I fully admit I'm not very well-versed on databases or distributed computing, happy to have things clarified.
- daleharvey 8y agoI had to make that distinction fairly early on wether PouchDB would be an edge client or a full node and I decided full node, tradeoffs either way but pros of being a full node: 1. Additional (p2p) use cases, honestly I dont use CouchDB much these days, I use express-pouchdb-server so I can embed pouchdb into my server easier than any other database, there is also pouchdb-server and p2p projects like Thali (http://thaliproject.org/ http://thaliproject.org/) 2. CouchDB existed, sync is super hard, writing an edge client would have meant designing it myself, writing a couchdb clone meant I needed to make a lot less decisions about how it worked while being very confident it would work, The test suite runs the same tests against pouchdb/couchdb to ensure compatibility (and replication via each configuration)