On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 02:41, Paul Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > Wojciech Kaczmarek wrote: >> >> 2009/4/25 Paul Davis <[email protected]>: >> >>> >>> On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Wojciech Kaczmarek >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> 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? >>>> >>> >>> Yeah, the code is just injected inline. I wouldn't worry about code >>> size unless you're doing something fairly strange. For normal use >>> which includes things like pulling in entire templating systems I've >>> never heard of an issue. >>> >> >> And what about handmade view servers in other languages? Is function >> hashing/storing done by couchdb itself and viewserver:add_fun receives >> the function text to execute, but doesn't care about storing? >> > > Yup. The view server doesn't care about the signatures. The logic for when > to reindex what is all handled in Erlang.
This is simple & cool. I think I owe the one who invented this architecture his favorite (alcoholic) beverage.. ;]
