Hey all,
this thread has long completed, so I'm going to tally up the results.
For every option in (+1, +0, -0, -1) I'll include the number of
"votes" in the form binding/total, where binding votes are those by
PMC members.
On 08.01.2009, at 04:30, Antony Blakey wrote:
1. Remove the _temp_view facility completely, because you can use a
temporary _design view, at which point you should understand the
performance implications, and it cleans up the code.
+1: 2/6
+0: 1/2
-0: 1/1
-1: 0/0
2. Leave it as _temp_view, because it does the equivalent of view
create/query/delete view in a single POST, and you can document the
performance issue.
+1: 2/6
+0: 1/1
-0: 1/2
-1: 1/1
3. Change it to _slow_view, because compared to _temp_view, the name
should act as an immediate warning for people who haven't read the
documentation.
+1: 1/1
+0: 1/1
-0: 1/1
-1: 2/6
One thing that's clear is overwhelming objection against the renaming
to _slow_view. There seems to be a slight preference towards removing
temp views altogether, but I think that may take more discussion.
I would suggest we move forward here by first backing out the change
to _slow_view. It's been in there way too long considering the lack of
consensus over the change, and moving back and forth on such things is
a real pain for authors of apps and/or libraries that would like to
stay compatible with trunk (for example, I never made the change to
_slow_view in couchdb-python because I was optimistic that the name
wouldn't stick ;) ).
Then, we can start discussing the potential removal of temp views,
preferrably based on a concrete patch.
Cheers,
--
Christopher Lenz
cmlenz at gmx.de
http://www.cmlenz.net/
