On 12/11/2013 09:56 AM, Daniel Bevenius wrote:
>One of my concerns with Couch is it is another
application/server/dependency to package and keep up with.
The suggestion is that we do something similar to CouchDB and perhaps
lend some ideas from their protocol and how they handle conflicts. Not
that we base this on CouchDB, sorry if this was confusing.
A server implementation might start off delegating to a CouchDB
instance just to get up and running. This way our client libs would
have something work against.
Ok, just wanted to make sure.
On 11 December 2013 15:47, Summers Pittman <supittma(a)redhat.com
<mailto:supittma@redhat.com>> wrote:
On 12/11/2013 04:44 AM, Bruno Oliveira wrote:
> Very very very simple with CounchDB +4242424242
>
One of my concerns with Couch is it is another
application/server/dependency to package and keep up with.
Of course if we want to build an aerogear-sync-server application
instead of an aerogear-sync-sererver spec that servers can
implement it
makes a lot more sense.
Can CouchDB be embedded in a Java EE application?
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev