On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Ulises <ulises.cerv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> A) GET /db/_show_view/mydesign/myview
>> B) GET /db/_show_view/mydesign/myshowfunc/myview
>> C) GET /db/_view/mydesign/myview?strartkey="foo"&show=myshowfunc
>
> Call me thick but C looks cleaner to me.
>
>> {
>> ...
>> "show" : {
>> "docs" : { ... },
>> "views" : {
>> "myshowfunc" : "function(row, head) { ... }"
>> }
>> }
>
> how about including your show fns in show { } ?
that's what's above
show funcs for documents are at
ddoc.show.docs
and show funcs for views are at
ddoc.show.views
I'm leaning B or C as well.
My main reservation about C is what it will do to the internals.
Erlang actions that are scoped to a _private_path URL can be kept in
their own module and moved around via the config API. If we amke it an
options on regular views, we lose that freedom.
Also, I do like the current URL scheme for document show funcs, partly
for the config reason, but also because I think
GET /db/_show/mydesign/myshowfunc/docid
is clearer than
GET /db/docid?show=mydesign/myshowfun
>
> {
> ...
> views: {
> foo : { map : ... }
> },
> show: {
> as_xml: function(...) { ... },
> }
> }
>
>> I'm leaning toward letting the user decide at query-time which view to
>> render using which show-func, that is, options B or C.
>
> Well I thought that that was a given, flexibility so that users can
> define a couple of views, a couple of shows so that the combinations
> then are more useful.
>
> U
>
--
Chris Anderson
http://jchris.mfdz.com
