Re: [user] Re: The Blog

[Adam Petty <ad...@gmail.com>]

Well -- Its sounds like couch is starting to be able to stand up to the
fire... which is why I'm digging this thread.

But yes - too much heat and the whole proprietary/RDBMS community could
start aiming bazooka's at it - which might do some damage.  So maybe some
middle ground somewhere..

I'll work on a compilation - and post it and see where the wiki takes it.  I
would have to agree that there is something to google's jedi strategy with
microsoft...

"nothing to see here... these aren't the droids you're looking for... of
course we're not competing with microsoft"

-- and can keep that in mind also

okay enough about that -

Just as a frame of reference... the only thing that has held couch back for
development at my work - has been the lack of a pluggable reporting tool.  I
know that is really just semantics - that Pentaho can use an XML dataset -
and JSON - XML translation seems easy BUT.... nothing out of the gate yet.
In my case - bosses love names -- SSRS, 10g, CrystalReports, Business
Objects..etc.

-- as for an example db issue...
For some reason -  without transactions the RDBMS people at my work seem to
not want to consider couch for anything having to do with money.

I know it would be fairly simple to have an "accounts" array field on a JSON
user-account document - that way no single "enities" account could be
changed by more than one write at the same time... seems rediculously simple
- but is there a case where this could fail?

Seems like money is always the most sensitive issue - if we could develop a
very usable "banking" example db secenario - maybe an artificial bank app?
and see if we can break it - or get out of sync balances due to timing
issues -- etc?

.02$






On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 04:18:09PM +0100, Wout Mertens wrote:
> > To be honest, I think saying RDBMS and CouchDB are for different
> > solutions is just you guys being nice. I think that any application
> > would benefit from using the CouchDB model and only in very specific,
> > very demanding cases an RDBMS would be better. I can't think of any
> > examples though.
>
> Not really, I just like avoiding the flames. Heh heh.
>
> I see where you want to go with this, and I agree that some applications
> are
> better suited to CouchDB, but I think it's often a blurry line, and you
> will
> draw fire from the RDBMS people for anything too concrete.
>
> --
> Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
>

Re: [user] Re: The Blog

[Alan Bell <al...@theopenlearningcentre.com>]

banking should work just fine. I wrote an application in Notes called 
puffin (personal finances in Notes) and I was thinking about reviving it 
as puffic or something.Each transaction is a document, each account is a 
view. A document has a source account, a destination account and a 
value. It appears as a positive value in the destination account and a 
negative in the source account. Thus buying a newspaper might debit the 
"wallet" account and credit the "books and periodicals" expense account. 
Taking cash from an ATM would debit the current acccount and credit the 
wallet.

Adam Petty wrote:
> Well -- Its sounds like couch is starting to be able to stand up to the
> fire... which is why I'm digging this thread.
>
> But yes - too much heat and the whole proprietary/RDBMS community could
> start aiming bazooka's at it - which might do some damage.  So maybe some
> middle ground somewhere..
>
> I'll work on a compilation - and post it and see where the wiki takes it.  I
> would have to agree that there is something to google's jedi strategy with
> microsoft...
>
> "nothing to see here... these aren't the droids you're looking for... of
> course we're not competing with microsoft"
>
> -- and can keep that in mind also
>
> okay enough about that -
>
> Just as a frame of reference... the only thing that has held couch back for
> development at my work - has been the lack of a pluggable reporting tool.  I
> know that is really just semantics - that Pentaho can use an XML dataset -
> and JSON - XML translation seems easy BUT.... nothing out of the gate yet.
> In my case - bosses love names -- SSRS, 10g, CrystalReports, Business
> Objects..etc.
>
> -- as for an example db issue...
> For some reason -  without transactions the RDBMS people at my work seem to
> not want to consider couch for anything having to do with money.
>
> I know it would be fairly simple to have an "accounts" array field on a JSON
> user-account document - that way no single "enities" account could be
> changed by more than one write at the same time... seems rediculously simple
> - but is there a case where this could fail?
>
> Seems like money is always the most sensitive issue - if we could develop a
> very usable "banking" example db secenario - maybe an artificial bank app?
> and see if we can break it - or get out of sync balances due to timing
> issues -- etc?
>
> .02$
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>   
>> On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 04:18:09PM +0100, Wout Mertens wrote:
>>     
>>> To be honest, I think saying RDBMS and CouchDB are for different
>>> solutions is just you guys being nice. I think that any application
>>> would benefit from using the CouchDB model and only in very specific,
>>> very demanding cases an RDBMS would be better. I can't think of any
>>> examples though.
>>>       
>> Not really, I just like avoiding the flames. Heh heh.
>>
>> I see where you want to go with this, and I agree that some applications
>> are
>> better suited to CouchDB, but I think it's often a blurry line, and you
>> will
>> draw fire from the RDBMS people for anything too concrete.
>>
>> --
>> Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
>>
>>     
>
>   

Re: [user] Re: The Blog

[Justin Sheehy <ju...@iago.org>]

Adam,

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Adam Petty <ad...@gmail.com> wrote:

> For some reason -  without transactions the RDBMS people at my work seem to
> not want to consider couch for anything having to do with money.

You should direct your colleagues to Pat Helland, a luminary in
RDBMS's and transactions:

http://blogs.msdn.com/pathelland/archive/2007/06/14/accountants-don-t-use-erasers.aspx

-Justin

Re: [user] Re: The Blog

[Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>]

On 9 Feb 2009, at 16:55, Adam Petty wrote:

> -- as for an example db issue...
> For some reason -  without transactions the RDBMS people at my work  
> seem to
> not want to consider couch for anything having to do with money.

Somebody should tell them that banks have since moved
to eventually consistent data storage for most but the most
heavyweight (money-)transactions.

Cheers
Jan
--

>
>
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>  
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 04:18:09PM +0100, Wout Mertens wrote:
>>> To be honest, I think saying RDBMS and CouchDB are for different
>>> solutions is just you guys being nice. I think that any application
>>> would benefit from using the CouchDB model and only in very  
>>> specific,
>>> very demanding cases an RDBMS would be better. I can't think of any
>>> examples though.
>>
>> Not really, I just like avoiding the flames. Heh heh.
>>
>> I see where you want to go with this, and I agree that some  
>> applications
>> are
>> better suited to CouchDB, but I think it's often a blurry line, and  
>> you
>> will
>> draw fire from the RDBMS people for anything too concrete.
>>
>> --
>> Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
>>