couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jan Lehnardt <>
Subject Re: renamed _temp_view to _slow_view
Date Tue, 06 Jan 2009 12:30:16 GMT

On 6 Jan 2009, at 13:24, Christopher Lenz wrote:

> On 06.01.2009, at 13:04, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>> On 6 Jan 2009, at 12:54, Noah Slater wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 12:44:24PM +0100, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>>>> There is no mechanism in CouchDB that people should use "instead  
>>>> of MVCC"
>>>> whereas in most cases people shouldn't use _temp_views at all and  
>>>> we make the
>>>> case that we don't really need them at all. Why should we keep  
>>>> them (other
>>>> than "because we have them")?
>>> Being able to easily play/debug with views is presumably a net win.
>> Via Futon, Chris will prepare a patch that keeps the current  
>> behaviour.
>> Other libraries exist (CouchRest), are in the process of being  
>> updated
>> (couchdb-python) and can easily be written.
> I can't say for sure without seeing a more concrete proposal on how  
> this would be handled, but all the approaches I can imagine would be  
> quite the hack, leaving such "temp" design docs lying around in some  
> cases, and causing conflict errors when you somehow try to do two or  
> more queries at the same time.
> And wasn't JChris' suggestion for Futon to prompt for the design/ 
> view name before running?

Right, "near current behaviour". We don't want to encourage the wrong
model in Futon :) Yes this makes thinks a little more complex, but not
too complex.


View raw message