On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Paul Davis <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> What if the client doesn't have access to the arbitrarily chosen >> address? There's no way that CouchDB can guess at all the possible >> network configurations to try and make that choice. Even if a random >> address works 99% of the time, why make a decision to break things for >> the 1%? Even if we list multiple address the client is free to just >> try the first one and have it work 99% of the time. > indeed. > So let' let the client doing the choice itself. I think that's indeed > case where there will be more than one will be rare. Put all urls on > different lines may be more "unix". >
I'm confused, are you agreeing that we need all the address on the file system now? >> >> I'm not sure what you mean by virtual hosting and different data or >> what problems that might introduce. >> > was thinking to a vhost systeme àla apache > > [vhost] > port = 5984 > bind_address = 127.0.0.1 > database_dir = /usr/local/var/lib/couchdb > view_index_dir = /usr/local/var/lib/couchdb > uri_file = /usr/local/var/lib/couchdb/couch.uri > > etc . one section per vhost. Just a thought. > > - benoit > Still confused. The basic premise of a vhost is to demultiplex incoming requests (that share a single transport) and forward them to separate resources. Ie, forwarding vhosts to different databases. If each vhost had its own ip:port pair, they wouldn't be vhosts, just hosts. And further, I don't think I'd be in favor of such a feature as the technical debt seems a tad high for the benefit. HTH, Paul Davis
