On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 10:10:21PM +0100, Christopher Lenz wrote: > In general, I think that API changes, even at this point, should be done > with care. Building a thriving ecosystem of client applications and > libraries is going to get pretty tough when people get the perception > that things change around arbitrarily for no good reason.
Despite my previous email in the other thread about the benefits of IRC, I would like to see breaking changes and important design decisions proposed on the mailing list with at least some informal consensus building. > But even ignoring backwards compatibility, I'm not a fan of this change. > _temp_view makes the difference between temp views and regular views > pretty clear in that they are one-off views that don't get stored. Now, > if someone doesn't understand that that makes them slow, they better get > back to reading the basics about how views in CouchDB work. Also, "slow > views" aren't really any slower than, erm, "fast views" when you run > either only once. And when are we going to rename /_view to /_fast_view > to make it clear that they're "faster"? And are we seriously going to > refer to temp views as "slow views" from now on? Really? :P I totally agree, I think the new name is a poor choice. > So, to summarize, I think this change is misguided, and breaking > compatibility for no good reason rubs me the wrong way. This is only > slightly offset by the fact that client code shouldn't be using temp > views in the first place. Agreed. -- Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
