On 13 Sep 2009, at 19:37, Vlad GURDIGA wrote:
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 1:17 AM, Benoit Chesneau
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Vlad GURDIGA <[email protected]>
wrote:
It seams intuitive that _show actually shows you something and does
not handle update actions.
I agre that it in this case show isn't a good word. maybe "_page"
and
then "_pages" for _list but that another debate.
On the other hand why would we need an _update thing? Doesn't
CouchDB
handle that itself?
(Excuse me if the question is stupid, I was not on #couchdb at the
time when this discussion took place.)
_upate allow you to handle any input before saving them in couch like
xml, csv whatever or it could be also use to post some doc without
requiring ajax to do it.
To me, keeping the server simple (which also means less complicated
and buggy) and fast looks like a very nice idea. Splitting the
computation burden between clients and server looks to me like a fair
enough trade this time.
And, I believe that the several percent of the clients that do not
speak AJAX or cannot produce JSON should not dictate such a big change
in CouchDB.
_update already exists :) And it is very useful for webhooks that we
don't
control. being able to tell google's svn to ping CouchDB about a new
commit
without resorting to proxies is very powerful :)
One reason I love CouchDB is it's simplicity. If we bring this
middle-tier-like functionality in, we will end up with something like
PHP, GCI, RoR, Java and millions of others in which you *have* to
process information in one more intermediate tier before being able to
put it into the DB.
KISS.
No worries about KISS :)
Cheers
Jan
--
