On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 11:29 PM, Antony Blakey <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 27/12/2008, at 2:41 PM, Chris Anderson wrote: > >> This does nothing to address the restrictions on the character set of >> database and design doc names. Antony's patch looks like it works as >> advertised. If people are happy with the way it reorganizes couchdb >> data files, then I don't see a reason not to apply it (especially with >> the addition of a slug). > > It was built before the changes to the view server, so it doesn't apply > cleanly to head. If the change is approved in principle, then I'm happy to > do the work to make it slug-based i.e. <filtered-name> + <md5>, where > filtering removes all the special characters, prefixes and sequences, and > doesn't append an md5 if the filtered and raw names are the same. > > I'm ambivalent about the fact that it nests the derived data (e.g. views) > within the database directory. I think there's a valid argument against > that, based on the physical separation of the canonical data and the derived > data, but as I say, I'm ambivalent. I'll change it, if you want, to use two > directories per database, one for canonical data and one for derived data. >
I would be happy with two directories. Whether view data is a subdirectory of the db directory doesn't matter to me, but I would want an easy symlink-able answer to make views go to one disk and db data on another. > Antony Blakey > ------------- > CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd > Ph: 0438 840 787 > > The difference between ordinary and extraordinary is that little extra. > > >
