Web Development
Subnet Tracker - an example Progressive Web App PDF Print E-mail
News - Web Development
Written by Tim Black   
Friday, 22 November 2019 17:12

For an interview, I made a Progressive Web App named Subnet Tracker, which you can try out at https://subnettracker.alwaysreformed.com/.  It's pretty cool for a couple reasons.

First, it's a Progressive Web App, which means it installs and works offline just like a native mobile app, but it also is a website so you can deep link to its internal contents from other sites and apps if you like, even if the app isn't installed, which makes it better than a native app.  You can install it on your desktop computer too, in Chrome.  Because of features like this, progressive web apps are the future of the mobile web.

Second, it syncs changes you make to its data nearly immediately from your browser to the server and then to everyone else's browser who is using the app at the same time.  You can add or delete a subnet when you're offline, and when you go back online, your changes will automatically sync to the server, and any new changes on the server will sync to your device.  Check out the Help page for more on that (and hey, there's a deep link!).

You can try that out yourself by opening it in two browsers or even two machines, like this:


If you'd like a Progressive Web App, get in touch and I'll be glad to make one for you.

Last Updated on Friday, 22 November 2019 18:18
Recent project: PDS Trader PDF Print E-mail
User Rating: / 4
News - Web Development
Written by Tim Black   
Thursday, 07 November 2019 12:15

The majority of my web development work for the last 2 1/2 years went into maintaining and developing new features for PDS Trader, a platform for finding and planning the best option trades.  PDS Trader is made by Quantum Trading Technologies (QTT).  At the center of PDS Trader is its Portfolio Builder interface, where you can layer option trades ("legs") to make their net profit be positive regardless of whether the underlying market moves up or down.  The profit and loss of each leg is plotted on a chart (made with Highcharts), and their net profit or loss is displayed as one line on the chart.  By default, only that net profit line displays.

In the video below, QTT owner Ryan Jones demonstrates the central Portfolio Builder interface on which I worked.


Last Updated on Thursday, 07 November 2019 12:27
Interview questions, and answers! PDF Print E-mail
User Rating: / 2
News - Web Development
Written by Tim Black   
Tuesday, 12 March 2019 22:47

I'm looking for a new job as a full-stack web developer, so thought it might be useful to me and my potential interviewers to share the answers I wrote recently to some questions I was asked in an interview.  Happy reading!

What is important to you in a career?

I want to use my gifts to serve other people and provide for my family, and do the best job I can at that.

Have you ever worked remotely? If so, what challenges did you face and how did you overcome them?

Yes; nearly all of my 19 years of web development work has been done remotely. One challenge I faced was that a client asked for way more work than I could perform, and when I could not complete all of that work, he refused to pay for the work which I had actually completed! I had to let that client go. I learned a lot from that, but especially to communicate with a client early, often, and specifically about the client's needs and the project's progress. In my current job, we use Slack all day, occasional phone calls and screen sharing, Trello for issue tracking, and (rare!) lunches at a restaurant, and this regular communication helps us get things done. Most of the time I'm free to work without distraction, and we have open lines of communication to get help when we need it. For me, this arrangement has been ideal.

Describe the problem solving methodology you would use if asked to implement a new feature in an existing codebase.

Here's how it works in my current job. Typically I will get specific instructions from the product designer describing the new feature, sometimes with screenshots of how it should look. When something isn't described clearly enough or it doesn't quite make sense, I work with the designer to nail down the specifics so I'm sure I've got it right. If the feature is really large in scope, I document the feature's design first, starting with the intended use case, then the UI components & functionality, then the data model or database schema, then any new modules of code needed, then any general API surfaces that are needed. All documentation is versioned with the code.

Then I move to implementing the code. I start by making a new feature branch using git flow. I add the feature branch's name to the Trello card. If I don't already know where the code needs to be modified, to find the right location at which to begin modifying the code, I often start from the user's first point of interaction with the app, so I inspect the HTML source and trace the execution and the data back through events, variables, HTTP requests, functions, back to the database, until I find the location where the new feature can be implemented. I often then use a debugger to step through the execution to be sure of its flow and to know exactly what data is present. In the places where we are able to use unit tests, I write a unit test first. Then I outline the code changes I think need to be made in comments, then I write the code (including docblocks for methods), run it, see if the unit tests pass and the user interaction works right, and debug as necessary.

After implementing the code, I briefly document the changes I made in a git commit message (formatted for conventional-changelog), include the Trello card's URL in the commit message, rebase the feature branch on the develop branch, squash the feature branch if appropriate, and merge it to the develop branch. After testing the new feature and getting approval from the product designer, I merge the changes from the develop to the master branch and push them to production. Then I record any useful notes in the related Trello card (noting the relevant git commit hash; I like how Github automates that part) and move it to the "Deployed" list. That way, if we discover later that the problem isn't really solved, we have a paper trail to follow to fix it better in the future. In a hobby project I used TravisCI to push changes to master & production only when their unit tests passed, to implement a CI/CD deployment pipeline.

How have the SOLID principles influenced your code?

Most of my code has not used complex class hierarchies, and most of my time has been spent writing code that depends on base classes provided in frameworks and libraries, rather than implementing the base classes myself. So I haven't focused much on the whole domain where SOLID principles matter the most. But I have learned aspects of SOLID principles and practiced them as I've matured as a developer. That learning started when I read about extreme programming on the C2 wiki and elsewhere in the early 2000's. While I care to use many best practices (e.g., I aim to write clean, well-organized, maintainable, well-documented and self-documenting code), I also remain a pragmatic programmer, rather than a purist.

Single responsibility principle: I have followed the single responsibility principle more since I learned to write functions so that they can be more easily unit tested (functions that do only one thing are easier to test), and because "don't repeat yourself" is good advice most of the time.

Open/closed principle: I've extended base classes plenty in Backbone, TurboGears, Django, and CodeIgniter, and then overwritten the default methods they provide. Ever since learning how Prototype, Mootools, and other early JavaScript libraries modified global prototypes and so made themselves incompatible with each other, I've avoided monkey-patching base classes--who knows what havoc monkey-patching them would cause somewhere else in the application!

Liskov substitution principle: When I've extended a base class and overwritten the default methods it provides, I've generally assumed my custom methods should return the same types which are intended to be returned by the default methods, because I get that changing the return value to be different than what other programmers expect is not a nice thing to do! It's best to make code as easy to understand as possible, and avoid things that will confuse the next developer who reads the code.

Interface segregation principle: Earlier in my career I saved old code that was not used in case I wanted it again. Now I delete it and rely on git to resurrect it if it's needed again. The reason is that unused code is literally useless. It wastes developers' time and attention. I haven't written interfaces. But this same concern would motivate me to avoid writing interfaces that require subclasses to implement unused methods, and would motivate me to use other structures like multiple inheritance, mixins/traits, or libraries to implement only the functionality that is needed.

Dependency inversion principle: I don't think I've intentionally tried to make concretions depend only on abstractions.

Do you have experience with TDD? When is it helpful? When is it not?


Test driven development is helpful throughout the whole software development lifecycle. Writing tests first does a good job of connecting an implementation to its user story, design and contract. Test driven development can help keep code and the coder focused on implementing the features that are actually needed (avoiding feature bloat) and promote better code organization, modularization, and separation of concerns, promoting its readability and maintainability. Future users can consult unit tests as a form of documentation-by-example to be sure they understand how each method is intended to be used. TDD provides the developer an immediate feedback loop which helps catch bugs early, immediately after they are created, before deploying to production, and this gives developers, management, and clients more confidence that the software does what it's supposed to do. TDD makes it easier to refactor with confidence you're not breaking something. TDD can save a significant amount of time because it makes it less necessary for a human to manually test the same features over and over. TDD is especially helpful for implementing continuous deployment and delivery, which makes it possible to deploy new features to production faster than some competitors in the same market. Tests can help isolate the problem when applications unexpectedly fail in production after they had been working fine for some time in production beforehand. That kind of failure really does happen(!), and it's challenging to solve those problems without tests, logs, and other forms of instrumentation. After a bug is found, tests can provide assurance the bug is fixed. The more mission-critical a piece of code is to the business, the more it's worth testing to be sure it's still working correctly.

But not everything needs to be tested. Tests aren't needed for exploratory code, temporary prototypes, one-off scripts, or 3rd party libraries, and complete test coverage is less necessary for parts of the code that are not central to the business logic. In practice, I care more to write unit tests for controller methods than for the UI or views. Code that requires lots of stubs and mocks to test can make testing more trouble than it's worth. In the short term, the time needed to write tests must be balanced with the speed at which new features need to be completed. Over the long term, tests should be viewed as a way to reduce the time needed for maintenance (bug-fixing) on the software. The short-term and long-term needs of the business need to be weighed to know how much time should be given to writing tests. Some legacy code cannot be tested easily; newer web application frameworks tend to be set up to be more easily testable.

On the whole, test driven development is more helpful than not.

What new technology have you explored recently and what did you like / dislike about it?


I've used versions 0.5, 1, 2, 3 and the most recent pre-release version to make some hobby apps. Web components' encapsulation and composability are awesome; they are what I always wanted out of ExtJS, jQuery, Backbone and other frontend libraries. Their encouragement to just "use the platform" when you can is excellent; it is the future that's becoming the present, because the platform implements the W3C standards. For example, JavaScript now provides tagged template literals, which are an effective native replacement for JSX. Polymer's team has done a great job providing a stable upgrade path between major versions. Polymer never became popular, and its library-specific 3rd party tooling support isn't strong because it's bleeding-edge technology, but those down sides haven't bothered me much because Polymer is mostly W3C standards, which are undeniably popular and have excellent tooling support, frontend frameworks are beginning to use web components under the hood, and the Polymer team provides very well-designed starter kit apps to show how to put together a deployable app using the best current frontend tools.


I've used AngularJS (version 1) for the past 2 years at work, and am comfortable with it, but find applications made with it unnecessarily complex. One plus is that Angular's tooling support is quite strong.

In order to get comfortable with the newest versions of Angular, I have made some tutorial applications with Angular 7, and appreciate its use of more recent JavaScript and TypeScript features like modules, which make dependency injection a bit easier, and its use of components for organizing an app's functionality, but the application architecture it requires still seems more complex and proprietary than necessary. React, Vue and Polymer are easier to understand and use, which seems to me to be a very important advantage, because it can speed up onboarding new developers, can facilitate faster iterations and can better prevent the accumulation of legacy code which is hard to upgrade to newer versions of its dependencies, so ends up breaking.


That's exactly the problem my current employer needs to solve in the next couple years. I maintain and develop several CodeIgniter 2 applications which require PHP 5.6. In order to run PHP 5.6 on my Ubuntu 18.10 machine, I had previously used the ondrej/php PPA from deb.sury.org which permits installing several versions of PHP in parallel, but because PHP 5.6 is no longer supported (as of Jan. 1, 2019), in order to continue using it I had to hold back (not upgrade) some Ubuntu system packages, and eventually that broke a few other packages. The production servers' system packages will need to be upgraded to remain secure, and to upgrade the system packages, the apps need to be migrated to use PHP 7.x.

So to begin that transition, and prevent my local system from having broken packages, I've begun putting the apps in Docker containers. I like that Docker isolates PHP from my system packages! It will also let us upgrade each legacy PHP 5.6 application to a newer version of PHP individually as we have time, and until then, it will let us run the PHP 5.6 apps on upgraded and so secure servers, and make deployment even more stable than the automated deployment we already have. So I'm getting a Docker setup working to help my coworkers continue to maintain these apps after my contract ends.

This problem my current employer faces has shown me that companies should invest some time in upgrading their stack to newer software in order to prevent their software from becoming unsupported, insecure, broken, or incompatible with newer software, syntax, architectures, paradigms, etc. and the new efficiencies and so business value they can provide. Upgrading too often will slow down new feature development, but not upgrading often enough runs a real risk of the software ceasing to function as a whole.

Last Updated on Thursday, 14 March 2019 17:26
How to get out of crunch mode PDF Print E-mail
News - Web Development
Written by Tim Black   
Thursday, 04 August 2016 22:11

I did some serious reading and thinking about how I might be able to help a startup stay out of crunch mode, and came up with the following recommendations.

Getting out of crunch mode is a challenging transformation, because it requires changing a company's culture, business plan, and software development process, and these things are hard to change.

It is a matter of changing the company's culture. This has to start with the founders. You have to value a work-life balance.[1] One pointed way I saw this put was: you have to value your employees' bodies more than your profit. Benefits: 40 hour weeks improve employees' happiness and productivity[2], and enable the company to hire from a broader pool, including hiring not ONLY junior employees who are smart, productive, ambitious, and perhaps naive about the "churn and burn" process at some startups, but ALSO more senior employees who are domain experts (think Ph.D.s), stable, reliable professionals, and seek a better work-life balance out of wisdom and not merely necessity. You plan to expand your development team, and a broader candidate pool would make it easier to find candidates willing to relocate to [your non-Silicon Valley location].

It is a matter of changing your business plan. The release deadline pressure comes from selling what you don't have. You can transition to selling the features you have, and selling development services. This can be done gradually, and to a greater or lesser extent. Benefits: This reduces deadline pressure. Selling existing features to new customers also increases and diversifies your customer base, and you can leverage this portion of profit to fund new features. You can still contract to create new features for clients, but rather than guaranteeing specific features as the primary deliverables, guarantee your development services for a period of time as the primary deliverable, delivering new features frequently in an agile manner. This is a paradigm shift which could seem impossible to implement because some clients require feature deadlines, but for some clients faster iteration and constant feedback loops actually give them more needed features faster than they would get under feature deadlines.

It is a matter of changing the software development process and feature delivery architecture you use to implement your business plan. You can use branch-by-abstraction, put unfinished features (or alternative/optional/sales-tiered finished features) behind feature flags, implement continuous integration and continuous delivery[3], and so move to more frequent releases and a rolling release cycle. Continuous delivery and frequent releases are harder with software as complex as operating systems[4], but still possible. Benefits: Faster development velocity, shorter time-to-market for new features, so quicker response to competition, and less pressure on release day, because every day is a release day in that stable release candidates are built every day[3]. Some companies say they could not compete in today's market without using continuous delivery.


1. This is the shortest and most blunt article I read which could motivate a founder to change his priorities: http://chadfowler.com/2014/01/22/the-crunch-mode-antipattern.html.

2. Surprisingly, Henry Ford found reducing from 6 to 5 10-hour days actually made his workers produce more per week, and a further reduction to 5 8-hour days brought a further increase in production. This was with assembly line workers; arguably knowledge workers' productivity increases similarly when they are not tired. This and much other related research is mentioned in the paper responding to crunch mode at Electronic Arts at
http://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/2004-05/crunchmode/index.html. This paper is the best collection of material I found which makes the point that it's best to avoid crunch mode. http://www.igda.org/?page=crunchsixlessons is a good presentation, too.

3. How one company transitioned to continuous delivery: https://www.infoq.com/articles/cd-benefits-challenges. "The engineers commented that they don't feel the same level of stress on the release day that they did previously. That day becomes just another normal day."

4. Startup advisor Jocelyn Goldfein wrote that operating systems require a more regular and probably longer release cycle at http://firstround.com/review/the-right-way-to-ship-software/.

Last Updated on Friday, 28 June 2019 17:06
Two names: CouchDB & Couch App Server PDF Print E-mail
News - Web Development
Written by Tim Black   
Monday, 18 May 2015 04:21

I'm reposting here an This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it I wrote since it was well-received on the CouchDB marketing list, but its formatting did not display well there.

One of CouchDB's developers asked,

How can we make it that CouchApps strengthen CouchDB and not weaken it by adding confusion?

How do CouchApps fit into the CouchDB story?

I've been thinking about this discussion a little, and wanted to offer a few ideas from the perspective of a user.  In essence, I think the CouchDB community should focus on marketing two concepts named "CouchDB," and "Couch App Server."  This is a middle ground between the two extremes of "R.I.P. CouchApps" and "CouchApps are CouchDB's greatest feature!"  The middle ground is achieved by distinguishing CouchDB and CouchApps, and marketing them as two distinct ideas.  You don't have to stop marketing the idea of CouchApps; just market them as something distinct from CouchDB.  Both can be positively marketed, and succeed or fail on their own merits.  But by distinguishing the two, if CouchApps confuse people, they need not turn people away from CouchDB.  My thoughts and reasons for this are below.

1.  Evaluate the current marketing.  CouchApps are mentioned front and center in the first two paragraphs about CouchDB at http://couchdb.apache.org/.  They are mentioned in concept, though not by name.  They are implied in the slogan, "A Database for the Web" which is explained by those two paragraphs.  If CouchDB's marketing should take a different direction in the future, that marketing ought to deal with the question of whether the promises made in those two paragraphs are true.  Specifically, "CouchDB comes with a suite of features, such as on-the-fly document transformation and real-time change notifications, that makes web app development a breeze."  Does CouchDB "make web app development a breeze," or not?  These two paragraphs are the first ones to change.

2.  Make CouchApps secure.  If multiuser data within CouchApps cannot be properly secured presently because CouchDB does not require clients to send the Host header (I tried to test whether this is the case per this email), then make a config option to make CouchDB require the Host header.  It sounds easy to do, and the Host header is required in HTTP 1.1.  Or create a "default _rewrite path" configuration parameter as Giovanni described.  I expect this would make SmileUpps' CouchApp architecture secure for anyone who wants to use that architecture.

3.  Don't promise CouchApps are easy.  SmileUpps' CouchApp architecture is the only CouchApp architecture I'm aware of which has (almost) implemented document-level ACLs without some proxy server between the browser and CouchDB.  Others may exist; I just don't know about or remember them.  I have 15 years of part-time experience in full-stack web development, and have written two small CouchApps.  It doesn't appear to me that SmileUpps' CouchApp architecture is particularly easy for novices to learn and implement, at least at present.  Perhaps with a Yeoman generator or the like it could become easy.  But its current complexity does not seem to me to "make web app development a breeze," that is, if you want to prevent some users from reading all the data in one database, which is a normal or at least common requirement in web development.  The end result is not good--CouchDB's promise of easy CouchApps will lead novices to build insecure apps.  I wish CouchApps did make web app development a breeze, and would like to see CouchDB still be able to use that promise in its marketing.  But for now, it seems to me that CouchApps shouldn't be marketed to novice developers as an easy point of entry into web development.  CouchApps are rather a way for developers who already know (one of the many ways) how to structure a single-page app to serve that app out of CouchDB, and access CouchDB as the app's database.  It seems to me a developer should learn Backbone or Angular before CouchApps (like the Chatty tutorial assumes:  https://www.smileupps.com/couchapp-tutorial-chatty-read-api).  So, because they generally require 1) knowledge of a client-side framework, 2)  knowledge of CouchApps' file structure and functionality, and 3)  implementing a very specific CouchApp configuration to be properly secured, CouchApps aren't really an entry point into web development.  Instead, CouchApps are a way for non-novice developers to use CouchDB as both a database and an app server.

4.  CouchApps could rise again!  CouchApps' prospect of master-master replication of not only data, but apps, remains attractive to me.  Give users their data, and give them their code!  It's a powerful thing.  What if we all owned Facebook running in PouchDB in our browsers, without a persistent central server?  Diaspora, CouchAppSpora/Monocles, and a bunch of other software have aimed in this direction.  So I don't think it's wise to pull back completely from marketing CouchDB's CouchApp features.  Perhaps they could still be the future.

5.  Reprioritize marketing to serve today's web.  "CouchDB is [still] a database that completely embraces the web."  But the web has changed since CouchDB first embraced it.  Web apps have moved toward offline-first and syncing data to the server via REST.  Web apps don't live on the server anymore.  They live in your phone.  So, as an app developer, I don't need routing or SEF URLs (vhosts/rewrites) on the server; I need routing in the client.  While I still want to be able to query a CouchDB view via HTTP, or maybe even a show or list on occasion to provide an RSS feed, more often I want to query my data locally in PouchDB or something like it.  So it doesn't make sense to me to prominently market CouchDB's "on-the-fly document transformation" anymore.  I still want the feature, but it's not in the core of what I need.  What I need is a database that syncs.  CouchDB's other application server features are nice when I want them.

6.  Market an accurate Venn diagram.  The relationship between CouchDB's CouchApp features and CouchDB's non-CouchApp features is not one where you can divide the features neatly into two mutually-exclusive sets.  Rather, CouchApps use nearly all of CouchDB's features (except maybe replication), and non-CouchApps use a subset of CouchDB's features.  CouchApps may or may not use replication depending on whether they use something like PouchDB, and whether they use replication for deployment.  To put it in terms of my main proposal, future "CouchDB" would be a subset of CouchDB's current features, and "Couch App Server" would be a superset of that future "CouchDB" set.  This makes me think that it is hard for people to grasp what it means to disable the features which support CouchApps, because they too easily believe this means disabling the superset; disabling the whole of CouchDB 1.x's features.  So I think the best way to explain this to new users is to say that CouchDB is a database, and it comes with some extra features which are useful for an application server.  The first two paragraphs at http://couchdb.apache.org/ say as much, but they do not distinguish these two concepts in a way that is obvious and memorable to a newcomer, or that would convince the newcomer that they might want to use CouchDB as a database alone apart from its additional application server features.  The newcomer is left with the impression that the features unique to "Couch App Server" are actually part of the database, but while they are part of CouchDB, yet they are not technically database features; instead, they are web file server and document transformation features.

The way I perceive the natural groupings of CouchDB's features is as follows:

i)  Database:  The database that syncs (views (=indexes), HTTP interface, replication, filters, MVCC, changes feed, authentication)
ii)  [App Server?]:  Web file server (vhosts, rewrites, attachments) & design docs/stored procedures for further document transformation (views, shows, lists, update handlers)

i) is the core set of features, and i) + ii) = CouchApps.  I think this distinction should be displayed textually and graphically on CouchDB's front page.

Interestingly, ii) contains features of the past (server-side apps) and the (maybe) future (client-side apps, deployed through replication).  It would be worth noting this distinction on CouchDB's front page to help newcomers decide to what extent they need Couch's app server features.  It remains possible that someday the present swing toward client-side apps will reverse, and even these server-side features could become more of the future.  So I don't think the marketing should characterize CouchApps as a dying remnant from the past which will not be relevant in the future.

Earlier in CouchDB's lifetime we thought CouchApps using all of ii) were the future.  Now because there is less need for server-side routing and document transformation, the main parts of ii) which might be the future are views (for occasional direct queries over HTTP - yes, I included views in both i & ii), attachments (for serving/replicating your app's files from the database), and lists (for RSS feeds or data syndication/federation through filtered replication).  But it would be good to say on CouchDB's front page that a developer might not need any of the features in ii) today.

So Couch's app server features should not be marketed as extra features for advanced users.  They don't add functionality which every developer will want after they master the basics.  Rather, they are extra features which permit you to write limited server-side logic for your application, if you find you need it.  This is actually a useful point for a newcomer, because while single page applications running in the browser can perform most of the logic we need today, yet (aside from issues of data security and proprietary code, which are the realm of server-side node changes listeners) due to reasons of architecture and efficiency, we are not able to run all our logic in the browser; it's still wise to keep some logic in the database on the server side.  Often we're still dependent on server-side logic, and Couch's app server features can meet that need to a limited extent.

One result of the features in ii) is that your app's server-side and client-side logic can be synced from one server (CouchDB instance) to another.  For example, from your local development machine to the deployment server, or from one deployed application instance to several other nodes all running the same application, but with different filtered sets of data.  This warrants the slogan, "Apps that sync!"  However, that slogan might make people think the syncing in view is between CouchDB and the web browser, which is not what I mean by the slogan.  The apps' syncing is actually done by the features under i), but they are apps because of the features under ii).  So the "Apps that sync" do so because they are in "The database that syncs."

7.  My proposal.  So I propose splitting the features described in the first two paragraphs at http://couchdb.apache.org/, features which are mixed together there under the one name of "CouchDB" without any clear distinction, into two sets of features under two separate names and slogans:

1.  "CouchDB" - the database that syncs!
2.  "Couch App Server" - apps that sync!

Since I (as an app developer) only need CouchDB, market CouchDB most prominently.  But since Couch App Server is nice when I want it, and might be a good method for deploying app updates, market it as a nice but limited set of server-side features your app can use (even to serve your app), which can be secured, and which can be used to deploy app updates, but which you probably don't need if you are using a modern client-side application architecture.  If people want server-side features, this will be a selling point.  If people don't want server-side features, they will appreciate being told that they don't need to research CouchApps.

Because I want Couch App Server's features sometimes (RSS feeds), I think they should be enabled by default.  I don't see why it would be necessary to provide a configuration option to turn them off, but I wouldn't mind if they were turned off.

Though a graphic designer could figure out a better way than this, I envision presenting this distinction between "CouchDB" and "Couch App Server" in a graphic which shows CouchDB as the fundamental layer of Couch's architecture, and Couch App Server as an optional layer on top of CouchDB which includes additional features.  Below the graphic, I envision two columns of text, with CouchDB's description on the left, and Couch App Server's description on the right, and somehow CouchDB being portrayed as the most important of the two.  If you want to hide Couch App Server on the front page, then present only CouchDB on the front page, and provide a link to a page describing "Additional features" which presents the two-layer graphic and two-column descriptions I mentioned above.

If you want to remove the word "Couch" from "Couch App Server," just call it the "App Server."  That was easy.  : )

Last Updated on Tuesday, 30 August 2016 12:10
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next > End >>

Page 1 of 5