On 6 Jan 2009, at 13:24, Christopher Lenz wrote:
On 06.01.2009, at 13:04, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
On 6 Jan 2009, at 12:54, Noah Slater wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 12:44:24PM +0100, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
There is no mechanism in CouchDB that people should use "instead
of MVCC"
whereas in most cases people shouldn't use _temp_views at all and
we make the
case that we don't really need them at all. Why should we keep
them (other
than "because we have them")?
Being able to easily play/debug with views is presumably a net win.
Via Futon, Chris will prepare a patch that keeps the current
behaviour.
Other libraries exist (CouchRest), are in the process of being
updated
(couchdb-python) and can easily be written.
I can't say for sure without seeing a more concrete proposal on how
this would be handled, but all the approaches I can imagine would be
quite the hack, leaving such "temp" design docs lying around in some
cases, and causing conflict errors when you somehow try to do two or
more queries at the same time.
And wasn't JChris' suggestion for Futon to prompt for the design/
view name before running?
Right, "near current behaviour". We don't want to encourage the wrong
model in Futon :) Yes this makes thinks a little more complex, but not
too complex.
Cheers
Jan
--
