Return-Path: 
 <dev-return-21160-apmail-couchdb-dev-archive=couchdb.apache.org@couchdb.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DD7BB9610
	for <apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org>;
 Tue, 28 Feb 2012 10:25:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 47875 invoked by uid 500); 28 Feb 2012 10:25:04 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@couchdb.apache.org
Received: (qmail 47846 invoked by uid 500); 28 Feb 2012 10:25:04 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:dev-help@couchdb.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@couchdb.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@couchdb.apache.org>
List-Id: <dev.couchdb.apache.org>
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@couchdb.apache.org
Received: (qmail 47837 invoked by uid 99); 28 Feb 2012 10:25:04 -0000
Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 10:25:04 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0
	tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of bchesneau@gmail.com designates
 209.85.215.52 as permitted sender)
Received: from [209.85.215.52] (HELO mail-lpp01m010-f52.google.com)
 (209.85.215.52)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 10:24:58 +0000
Received: by lahi5 with SMTP id i5so1267448lah.11
        for <dev@couchdb.apache.org>; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 02:24:37 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of bchesneau@gmail.com designates
 10.112.86.198 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.112.86.198;
Authentication-Results: mr.google.com;
 spf=pass (google.com: domain of bchesneau@gmail.com designates 10.112.86.198
 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=bchesneau@gmail.com;
 dkim=pass header.i=bchesneau@gmail.com
Received: from mr.google.com ([10.112.86.198])
        by 10.112.86.198 with SMTP id r6mr7801204lbz.53.1330424677747
 (num_hops = 1);
        Tue, 28 Feb 2012 02:24:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=ThVKaaxaB51h6b4WwMluxrpahBSCKstIFZ21zZ4PY4I=;
        b=KsQ+v3y8xFpFrBCXY/zqwZTDoOZX3FeoI2DTABX8HcAQ5ccViaLddkcWtNgEF9GKv1
         /aywL7L+4htHtRCxmbfEIUI9ts6Ymv4F52JRHVtZ+BAm/ixDaPm2ye4q2rbeYGgZtDlP
         0LUWbCr5CRbRp5d14vmI7UdWKeM9Dr+coilpM=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.86.198 with SMTP id r6mr6519048lbz.53.1330424677647; Tue,
 28 Feb 2012 02:24:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.85.65 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 02:24:37 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAN-3CBLZ2z3a8VtX04NyZyy6VREQWJm_fUgryivcay8g1vBeZw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4F4C1BDF.8010305@gmx.de>
	<CAN-3CBKiNPqqYurx9UkouY960im-KFCuPRWfdwtUMmEuV=xH0g@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F4C9437.20406@gmx.de>
	<CAHdjipKpLWocM7EranacNVeHjbijJTb-andJdpPKyq1TGaCL=Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAN-3CBLZ2z3a8VtX04NyZyy6VREQWJm_fUgryivcay8g1vBeZw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 11:24:37 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAJNb-9oi2mXqvdGhzJHay2fm04NwOxYiGiK5d+rKrtNfMz6hsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: feasibility of a design doc option to use the "ddoc new"/"ddoc
 <id>" based protocol for map and reduce as well
From: Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Jason Smith <jhs@iriscouch.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Alexander Shorin <kxepal@gmail.com> wro=
te:
>> Hi Ronny,
>>
>> Invalidating views by ddoc _rev change is very bad idea - your 2M docs
>> database will have to be reindexed on each ddoc update: by adding
>> attachment or changing show function. Wait, what's the reason for
>> views to be invalidated in this case?
>
> Ronny, please correct me if I am wrong.
>
> But I think the reason is to allow using the *entire* design document
> to help build views. If so, the _rev invalidation is one thing, but
> changing CouchDB to send the entire ddoc will be a more substantial
> change.
>
> At any rate, this is why some example failing unit tests might clarify
> the objective.
>

why not adding a version property to your ddoc changes ?

- beno=EEt