couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mikeal Rogers <>
Subject Re: CommonJS in map and reduce
Date Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:44:48 GMT
CommonJS modules are javascript specific.

The only *special* thing we would be doing is saying that an attribute on
views that doesn't have a "map" attribute won't be considered a valid map
function but will be used in the hash. That's easily portable to other
languages if you are embedding the modules in the design document.


On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Stephen Prater <>wrote:

> Would this implementation be view server agnostic?
> How would it work with (say, theoretically) the Ruby view server?
> Although it's much harder to enforce the "don't import" rule in languages
> other than javascript, it would be nice to provide a "blessed" way to do a
> require for your view.
> On Sep 20, 2010, at 9:55 AM, Chris Anderson wrote:
>  Devs,
>> Mikeal and I were talking and we came up with a sane way to do
>> CommonJS in map and reduce.
>> Refresher: we don't have CommonJS require there now because the
>> current CommonJS implementation is scoped to the whole design doc, and
>> giving views access to load code from anywhere in the design doc would
>> mean we'd have to blow away your view index anytime you changed
>> anything. Having to rebuild views from scratch just because you
>> changed some CSS or a show function isn't fun,so we avoided the issue
>> by keeping CommonJS require out of map and reduce altogether.
>> The solution we came up with is to allow CommonJS inside map and
>> reduce funs, but only of libraries that are stored inside the views
>> part of the design doc.
>> So you could continue to access CommonJS code in, from
>> your list functions etc, but we'd add the ability to require CommonJS
>> modules within map and reduce, but only from design_doc.views.lib
>> There's no worry here about namespace collisions, as Couch just plucks
>> views.*.map and views.*.reduce out of the design doc. So you could
>> have a view called "lib" if you wanted, and still have CommonJS stored
>> in views.lib.sha1 and views.lib.stemmer if you wanted.
>> We could allow CommonJS modules to be stored anywhere in ddoc.views,
>> but I think it will simplify the implementation to enforce that they
>> be stored in views.lib -- if people think that is too restrictive,
>> please speak up now, otherwise I'll start to implement this.
>> Chris
>> --
>> Chris Anderson

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message