Thanks er! also for the exciting news:) We gave up using 2.0 quickly and used 1.6 for the offline copy of the site we had on your 1.6 w rewrite as a function Writing as loooong list of rewrite rules to replace the router written w rewrite function johs
> On 27 May 2017, at 07:23, ermouth <ermo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Couch 2.0 fails to process rewritten paths with ampersands (more than 1 > param in query). Afaik (however I have not tested) this issue is fixed in > 2.1. > > Although I‘m not sure it is the reason. > > To note: I plan to uncover a preview of new query server on Monday, as a > full replacement for lists, shows, rewrites, updates and so on. With SMS, > emails and all missing stuff. So stay tuned. > > ermouth > > 2017-05-23 13:47 GMT+03:00 Johs Ensby <j...@b2w.com>: > >> Hi, >> we have been using Couch 1.6 with a patch for the rewrite function, but I >> wanted to see how 2.0 in single node mode was doing these past two days. >> The test case was a rather big web site with a few databases holding a few >> thousand documents, images, PDF attachments. It is performing very well on >> Couch 1.6 >> >> Moving it from the cloud instance offline to a local Mac was as >> straigthforward as replication can be and with a few tweeks to the >> configration the site popped up on my iMac with all bells and whistles. >> That is, a few records did not replicate from Couch 1.6 on Ubuntu/AWS to my >> local Mac. >> >> But what quickly turned out to be a bigger problem was that attachments >> did not load into the browser reliably. >> CSS files and images would sometimes load, somtimes not. Normally the CSS >> files would load once and cache in the browser, but that did not prevent >> pages from loaded occationally as if the css file was missing (not with a >> 404, just show a red GET in the inspector without an error code). >> I seem to remember that there was a discussion about Etags in 2.0, but >> dont know if this is the issue here. >> Strange things like the images coming up instead of the requested images >> also happened. >> Safari was a lot worse than Chrome. >> >> Could anyone tell me if these are known bugs that are fixed in 2.1? >> >> Best regards, >> johs >> >> >>
