If I recall correctly, the "SQL layer" you had in FDB before the Apple acquisition was a nice proof of concept, but lacked support for many features (joins in SELECT, for example). Is the SQL layer code from that time available anywhere to the public? (I'm not seeing it in the repo announced by OP.)

I used to work there. The SQL layer was capable of actually the majority of SQL features including joins, etc. We had an internal rails app that we used to dog-food for performance monitoring, etc. I used to work on the document layer, and was sad to see it wasn't included here.

Perhaps it's this?

https://github.com/jaytaylor/sql-layer

That has FoundationDB dependencies that don’t exist in the apple repo (SQL Parser, JDBC Driver, etc)

I hope this question doesn't feel too dump, but is it possible to implement a SQL Layer using SQLite's Virtual Table mechanism and leverage all foundationdb's features?

Is the wire-compatible clone of the MongoDB API available?

It doesn't look like Apple open-sourced the Document Layer, which is a slight bummer. But I echo what Dave said below: what we got is incredible, let's not get greedy!

Also TBH now that I don't have commercial reasons to push interop, if I write another document database on top of FDB, I doubt I'd make it Mongo compatible. That API is gnarly.

> That API is gnarly.

Out of the many MongoDB criticisms, this one is valid. This https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/mongodb-frankenstein-monster-... article is quite right about it (note: endorsing the article does not mean I endorse its author by far).

Other than that, they totally did a fake it until you make it with MongoDB 3.4 passing Jepsen a year ago and MongoDB BI 2.0 containing their own SQL engine instead of wrapping PostgreSQL.

What specifically are you trying to avoid endorsing about the author of the LinkedIn post to which you linked? I couldn't find anything from a cursory web search.

He runs lambdaconf, and refused to disinvite a speaker who many people felt shouldn't be permitted to speak because of his historical non-technical writings.

(I've tried to keep the above as dry as possible to avoid dragging the arguments around this situation into this thread - and I suspect the phrasing of the previous comment was also intended to try and avoid that, so let's see if we can keep it that way, please)

You could try adding controversy to the author name and searching then. As mst correctly notes, I am trying to avoid reigniting said controversy while indicating my distaste.

> That API is gnarly.

The Will Wilson I remember was not prone to such understatement. That API (and the corresponding semantics) was a nightmare.

I was pretty bummed not see that, myself