Mailing-List: contact user-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of antony.blakey@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.200.172 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:references
         :x-mailer;
        b=mfQrv5bCWX4T55XycPZ5+X84i2bECFAi+NybkNEKnnYNU3OCafYhZ+rNbe3xeS3ZRR
         VxwrqwPQrdeCCzfl5z0OIqn71bsVhGoZy0DSgHFD7xjq8fAPdi5DO+Pj5duGaBAPrw4d
         T+dWrShwmR3YZ1j4a3f9hWT2UtXDQCPkhb9rA=
Message-Id: <16B01319-E095-40F0-A7F9-C31B07817B4E@gmail.com>
From: Antony Blakey <antony.blakey@gmail.com>
To: user@couchdb.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <20090107110235.GB5509@tumbolia.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Subject: Re: renamed _temp_view to _slow_view
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 14:00:20 +1030
References: <989C7CCA-8BE2-404A-A475-F4734FE5E99C@apache.org>
 <20090106112458.GA12534@tumbolia.org>
 <764188BB-94F5-4ECA-983D-E7A22C82AF2C@apache.org>
 <20090106115401.GD12534@tumbolia.org>
 <5A1821D2-B2D2-471C-820C-C975125DAD5D@apache.org>
 <6E02DC79-EF2F-4095-B3D2-623ED47BD792@gmx.de>
 <1964F1E3-BFC2-4403-A6C3-C14B14C5EC37@apache.org>
 <9FEA139C-062D-4872-8EE4-D6012B64F840@apache.org>
 <7c40ded80901060713o51af5245m2d381cd90f3b8d07@mail.gmail.com>
 <e282921e0901062040y2463fas901120b1bd96ff7a@mail.gmail.com>
 <20090107110235.GB5509@tumbolia.org>

On 07/01/2009, at 9:32 PM, Noah Slater wrote:

> Maybe someone who understands the code issues at hand (i.e. not me) =20=

> could
> summarise the options with the pros and cons outlined by the various =20=

> people in
> this thread and we could have a small vote on each option to see if =20=

> there's any
> clear consensus that we're missing. It might be the case that we all =20=

> disagree on
> our main preference but all share a second preference.

Not sure if someone is taking this task on. I'm not, but my normalized =20=

votes would be:

1. Remove the _temp_view facility completely, because you can use a =20
temporary _design view, at which point you should understand the =20
performance implications, and it cleans up the code.

   +1

2. Leave it as _temp_view, because it does the equivalent of view =20
create/query/delete view in a single POST, and you can document the =20
performance issue.

   +0.5

3. Change it to _slow_view, because compared to _temp_view, the name =20
should act as an immediate warning for people who haven't read the =20
documentation.

   -1

Antony Blakey
--------------------------
CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
Ph: 0438 840 787

If at first you don=92t succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being =
=20
a damn fool about it
   -- W.C. Fields