couchdb-marketing mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Johs. E" <>
Subject Re: CouchDB _rewrite
Date Mon, 07 Sep 2015 04:26:13 GMT
Thanks Joan,
we will prepare a strong case for it — probably needs to be part of a the “couchapp story”
discussion that we had a while ago

> On 04 Sep 2015, at 19:01, Joan Touzet <> wrote:
> 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" <>
>> To: " Developers" <>
>> Cc:
>> 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

View raw message