MongoDB 2.0 Should Have Been 1.0
luigimontanez.com
MongoDB 2.0 Should Have Been 1.0
1–10 of 51 posts
Re: MongoDB 2.0 Should Have Been 1.0
#2"No open source project has received more criticism in recent years than MongoDB."
[citation needed]
Suggesting that the 1.0 version number should have been reserved until more recently makes me think that what the author of this post is really saying is something like this:
"MongoDB wasn't really production-ready until recently. People who wanted to test something bleeding-edge out in the real world should have still been free to do so, but branding the product as a beta and giving it a sub-1.0 version number would have helped set expectations correctly."
Re: MongoDB 2.0 Should Have Been 1.0
#3I've been using MongoDB for well over a year now in around 6 apps (moved on from CouchDB) and I agree prior to 1.8 it should have been made more obvious that there were still some stability issues.
I have seen first hand some of the issues raised, we've had data disappear, recurring random crashes, ect. But I think the difference is 'everyone' knew that there were issues with MongoDB, you just needed to check in jira. Jumping to 1.0 too early is clearly part of the reason for this backlash as not everyone thinks to check the issues because they've come to believe 1.0 means its ready for mass adoption.
That being said, I love MongoDB and I would still use it in other apps, just got to decide if it's the right tool for the job.
Re: MongoDB 2.0 Should Have Been 1.0
#4[deleted]
Re: MongoDB 2.0 Should Have Been 1.0
#5I'm not a big fan of having version numbers have some type of special meaning. To me, your post implies that there's a line in the sand at some magic version number with respect to due-diligence (on everyone's part). Gmail was in "beta" for years...it didn't mean anything. I understand that wiki and history disagrees with me, but it's still how I feel.
Oh, and there's a chance that yesterday's drama was a hoax: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3205573
Edit:
Associating special meaning with these things has always been "gamed". Access went from 2 to 7. Heck, office went from 97 to 2000!
Re: MongoDB 2.0 Should Have Been 1.0
#6[deleted]
If you spent months doing research, is there a way you could share your findings besides broad stroke sweeping statements? All these discussions get cluttered with people offering few details about their investigative process but offering their conclusions. It doesn't serve to move the discussion forward because there are anecdotal experiences on both sides.
Re: MongoDB 2.0 Should Have Been 1.0
#7Raise your hand if you're relying on package version numbers to tell you which packages to implement in your high-volume production environment against live customer data.
Re: MongoDB 2.0 Should Have Been 1.0
#8"No open source project has received more criticism in recent years than MongoDB." [citation needed] Suggesting that the 1.0 version number should have been reserved until more recently makes me think that what the author of this post is really saying is something like this: "MongoDB wasn't really production-ready until recently. People who wanted to test something bleeding-edge out in the real world should have stil…
[citation needed] indeed. My vote would be Java
Re: MongoDB 2.0 Should Have Been 1.0
#9Any reasonable dev knows that version numbers are useless until you know the process and history behind them. You should have a healthy amount of fear before commiting to a brand new to the market db, regardless of 1.0 status.
There are places to fuck around with your stack choices, but databases aren't one of them unless you absolutely need this new tech. Lets be honest and acknowledge that most sites using Mongo today could be using an sql based solution with no issue.
Some people are leveraging it for a reason, others.... just for kicks. If your doing it just for kicks, you'd better be comfortable with uncertainty.
Re: MongoDB 2.0 Should Have Been 1.0
#10[deleted]
If you spent months doing research, is there a way you could share your findings besides broad stroke sweeping statements? All these discussions get cluttered with people offering few details about their investigative process but offering their conclusions. It doesn't serve to move the discussion forward because there are anecdotal experiences on both sides.
Exactly. There is no "he said, she said" to be had about software on deterministic turing machines. If you're attacking the product's QA as grossly inadequate, do some QA: post steps to repro a bug and get others to verify.
The rest is noise.