On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 11:29, Jason Smith <j...@couch.io> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 00:21, Randall Leeds <randall.le...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'm 100% in favor of more radical js improvements like emonk. >> >> However, toward Jason's comment, what do you all think of exposing a >> saveDoc >> function instead? > > > I am eager to process form submissions from web browsers. Whatever makes > that possible would be just fine. > > I think the only significant critique about this is that the view server is > blocked, so what would process the validation functions? Chris said that > that's not a fatal flaw, you just spin up more view servers.
I think the view server is blocked either way with the current protocol, no? Either way we're waiting for a response from couch to call back into JS, it's just whether we're calling the original function or the continuation. I don't have a strong preference either way, but I do slightly favor the callback continuation as a mild style preference. In either case, do we have to add some new response format so the query server can say "Hey call me again and tell me what to do with this result?" In other words, both of our suggestions can work on top of the same change that needs to happen to the view server line protocol, so you can code up either one and we can settle on what it should look like to people writing update handlers later, no?
