Thank you Jan for the comment.
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. Could you please give an example or two? > being able to tell google's svn to ping CouchDB about a new commit > without resorting to proxies is very powerful :) I have no idea about how SVN would ping a CouchDB app. Could you please elaborate on this? I really appreciate the work you are doing guys, I'd love to get involved, and I'm trying to understand the flow of things here. Thanks a lot!
