2015-12-01 18:04 GMT+01:00 ermouth <[email protected]>:

> Off: I like your new logo (your avatar?) very much! Nice and professional
> work, gratz to logo‘s author.
>

:) Thanks, really appreciated!!


>
> > Would it be possible to make external http calls too?
>
> Not sure if it‘s possible. But will investigate, mb loop through proxy or
> smth.
>
> > requests generating infinite loops
>
> Well, rewrite counts number of hops. This feature also can count and have
> upper limit of iterations.
>

Great, a hop counter is simple and nice to have. It may eventually allow
developers to catch unwanted long-running operations or simply know how
many hops are left.

One question: from what I understand client connections are kept open by
the server until all hops are finished. But what if a client closes the
connection before hops chain end? Are all the scheduled hops completely
executed, or the chain will be interrupted?


-- Giovanni



>
> 2015-12-01 16:17 GMT+03:00 Giovanni Lenzi <[email protected]>:
>
> > Wow, very useful!!!
> >
> > It would be finally possible to aggregate multiple document updates on
> the
> > server-side, thus implementing server-side actions in a secure and
> complete
> > way, calling a single application api method. I also like the two new
> ways
> > of priting output: chunked and reduced.
> >
> > Would it be possible to make external http calls too? That would allow
> > developers to build full js integration libraries for third party
> services,
> > withouth the need for any node.js external process!!
> >
> > I'm afraid about requests generating infinite loops, but I'm more afraid
> > that trying to simply kill them, may negatively affect some use cases.
> >
> >
> > --Giovanni
> >
> > 2015-11-26 6:07 GMT+01:00 ermouth <[email protected]>:
> >
> > > > is not like multiple lines of code in a server side .asp php or node
> > > program
> > > > it is more like "ask for this, and depending on the answer,
> > > > ask for this" like a "request tree"
> > >
> > > Actually, that _is_ like asp, php or node program :) As for php guys
> > > approach is nearly native, sync program code runs inbetween DB
> requests.
> > >
> > > As for node.js guys it also could be understood in native paradigm:
> think
> > > couchapp functions are kinda middleware in request processing chain,
> and
> > > each middleware function can determine next step.
> > >
> > > Somehow like express.js maybe, but in express you call next(args) when
> in
> > > CouchDB you just return {path:"...", body:"args"}. Also in node your
> > > middleware can be async, but in CouchDB it should be sync.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ermouth
> > >
> > > 2015-11-26 5:11 GMT+03:00 Johs Ensby <[email protected]>:
> > >
> > > > Ermouth,
> > > >
> > > > > On 25. nov. 2015, at 18.18, ermouth <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > chunked response and reduce approach
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think both modes are valuable, conceptually we end up with 3 modes
> of
> > > > respons
> > > > Technically it makes sense to describe as server response.
> > > >
> > > > I am trying to think of how we want to spin this to the new
> developers
> > > >
> > > > I would recommend that we name the feature as seen from the front-end
> > > > developer
> > > >
> > > > - single request
> > > > - chained request
> > > > - progressive load
> > > >
> > > > The 3rd being a variant of chained request not accumulating but
> > spitting
> > > > output into the client for as long as it takes
> > > >
> > > > "Single reqest" is the normal thing, but what we see as one of the
> > > painful
> > > > limitations of Couch
> > > > "Chained request" is the new thing that is not like multiple lines of
> > > code
> > > > in a server side .asp php or node program, it is more like "ask for
> > this,
> > > > and depending on the answer, ask for this" like a "rewuest tree"
> > > > "Progressive load" is a super way to improve performance, it is
> writing
> > > > for UX, "what the user needs right away is... then .... and
> eventually
> > > > she/he will be looking for .. if a link in the first chucks has been
> > > > clicked yet"
> > > >
> > > > johs
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to