couchdb-marketing mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joan Touzet <woh...@apache.org>
Subject Re: CouchDB _rewrite
Date Fri, 04 Sep 2015 17:01:10 GMT
Proedurally, CouchDB 2.0 is effectively in feature freeze - we need to
get it out the door, it is far overdue.

Looking at changing basic functionality like _rewrite can come after
2.0 is done, in the 3.0 timeframe.

-Joan

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Johs. E" <johs@b2w.com>
> To: "dev@couchdb.apache.org Developers" <dev@couchdb.apache.org>
> Cc: marketing@couchdb.apache.org
> Sent: Friday, September 4, 2015 8:21:12 AM
> Subject: CouchDB _rewrite
> 
> Fellow CouchDB enthusiasts,
> 
> Let me quote a dialogue I had the other day with a colleague on
> Couchapps and _rewrite:
> 
> > > I would like to know what is so horrible with the vhost/rewrite
> > > of CouchDB
> > You must concentrate all rules in one place, that is totally out of
> > idea ‘one app – one ddoc’
> > Capturing mechanics is outrageously ugly and limiting. You can‘t
> > capture on query, only on path, and in very limiting manner.
> > Obsolete for at least 15 years.
> > Rule lists are flat – they must be trees, since it‘s json, not SQL
> > table of directory with files.
> > It‘s all very brittle, error prone and imposes all possible hurdles
> > during debug – no err messages, no log, no validator.
> > And most important: it creates illusion, that it can fit everything
> > – but it only fits small static-like sites.
> > > Is it something that could be fed to the developers?
> > 
> > Don‘t think anybody of them is interested. This functions assumed
> > obsolete or impractical by the vast majority of community, as I
> > see. And I agree with them.
> 
> Still with its limitations, I love _rewrite
> You direct the vhost to db/_design/api/_rewrite
> using so-called “unsafe” rewrites, you create an API for your many
> databases and their couchapps there.
> It works beautifully.
> That is at Cloudant. I think I learned from an earlier discussion
> that the lack of a “default vhost” is a problem outside Cloudant.
> Now Cloudant does not offer SSL unless you enter into a relationship
> with your local IBM organization and buy a dedicated cluster under a
> std IBM contract, so
> 
> Of course I would like to see a better rewrite function, my priority
> would be
> A tree structure of rules
> Capture query in the “to”
> That would be a great enhancement to go with version 2.0
> 
> br
> Johs
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message