Actually, upon further inspection I think this is probably closer to a
Ruby's "include" than it is to "require" - which is a good thing.
At some point, the view server will be required to compile/eval
whatever code is in the "lib" element, no?
Would it do this separately from compiling the views themselves? I'm
not entirely clear on how the CommonJS module system is supposed to
behave here.
Obviously, any "lib" code in a Ruby view server, would have to be
written in Ruby, and not JS.
stephen
On Sep 20, 2010, at 10:44 AM, Mikeal Rogers wrote:
CommonJS modules are javascript specific.
The only *special* thing we would be doing is saying that an
attribute on
views that doesn't have a "map" attribute won't be considered a
valid map
function but will be used in the hash. That's easily portable to other
languages if you are embedding the modules in the design document.
-Mikeal
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Stephen Prater <[email protected]
>wrote:
Would this implementation be view server agnostic?
How would it work with (say, theoretically) the Ruby view server?
Although it's much harder to enforce the "don't import" rule in
languages
other than javascript, it would be nice to provide a "blessed" way
to do a
require for your view.
On Sep 20, 2010, at 9:55 AM, Chris Anderson wrote:
Devs,
Mikeal and I were talking and we came up with a sane way to do
CommonJS in map and reduce.
Refresher: we don't have CommonJS require there now because the
current CommonJS implementation is scoped to the whole design doc,
and
giving views access to load code from anywhere in the design doc
would
mean we'd have to blow away your view index anytime you changed
anything. Having to rebuild views from scratch just because you
changed some CSS or a show function isn't fun,so we avoided the
issue
by keeping CommonJS require out of map and reduce altogether.
The solution we came up with is to allow CommonJS inside map and
reduce funs, but only of libraries that are stored inside the views
part of the design doc.
So you could continue to access CommonJS code in design_doc.foo,
from
your list functions etc, but we'd add the ability to require
CommonJS
modules within map and reduce, but only from design_doc.views.lib
There's no worry here about namespace collisions, as Couch just
plucks
views.*.map and views.*.reduce out of the design doc. So you could
have a view called "lib" if you wanted, and still have CommonJS
stored
in views.lib.sha1 and views.lib.stemmer if you wanted.
We could allow CommonJS modules to be stored anywhere in ddoc.views,
but I think it will simplify the implementation to enforce that they
be stored in views.lib -- if people think that is too restrictive,
please speak up now, otherwise I'll start to implement this.
Chris
--
Chris Anderson
http://jchrisa.net
http://couch.io
