On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 20:15, Paul Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Chris Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Wojciech Kaczmarek >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Now I see similar questions emerged. So my point is now: Is there a >>> way, existing or planned, to share some functions between views >>> without using couchapp macros? >> >> No such plans. The functions are stored according to a hash of their >> byte representation, so it's important that the function doesn't load >> any additional code, changing its behavior without changing its >> byte-string. Hence the use-case for something like CouchApp. > > The reason for the hashing is that we need to know when the function > changes to know when to reindex documents. Storing library code > somewhere ends up making this a bit more complicated. I wouldn't call > it out of the question to have something, but I don't think its on > anyone's agenda as things like CouchApp alleviate most of the need for > it.
I see. This is quite clever hack. I like its simplicity (Couchdb shines this way in other aspects as well, so kudos to all implementors :-). So the result of CouchApp push are just injected code chunks, right? What about code size for really complicated macro sets, is it irrelevant in practice?
