On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:27 AM, [email protected] < [email protected]> wrote:
> Hey all, > > I've been working on merging the view changes functionality from rcouch > into CouchDB. I've made a few (hopefully) uncontroversial tweaks, but I'd > like to build some consensus on what the API should look like before I go > much further. > Thanks :) Where can I see the code? > First of all, the view changes in rcouch endpoint looks like: > > /:db/_changes?filter=_view&view=:design/:view > > I'd suggest changing this to be something like: > > /:db/_design/:design/_view_changes/:view > or possibly > /:db/_design/:design/_view/:view/_changes > The main reason the view changes is above is to replace the current inefficient "_view" filter. Qhat would you do for ths one? Simply removing it? How would you handle the replication using this filter? > > Secondly, the merge adds a couple optional flags to the design doc (both > disabled by default): > > 1) A flag to enable most view changes functionality > 2) A flag to enable efficient querying of the view changes feed over a > range of keys. (eg. if a view emits keys in the form of [year, month, day], > you could query for all the changes which are between [2014, 3, 10] and > [2014, 3, 20]) > > In rcouch, the flag for #1 is called "seq_indexed". That name may be a bit > opaque to a user. Maybe something like "enable_changes"? > > #2 doesn't exist in rcouch (ie. enabling the "seq_indexed" flag in rcouch > creates an extra index solely for view changes queries over a range of > keys). I've talked with some people about making the key+seq index > independent from the base view changes index. If they were independently > optional, you'd be able to use the view changes functionality without > creating an unused key+seq index (or vice versa). I've found that people > generally think that it's a good idea, but if anyone disagrees, feel free > to bring it up. I've already implemented the necessary changes for this > behavior, but I need a good flag name. Maybe "enable_keyed_changes"? > > Otherwise, I think it'd be good to reuse the query string/POST body options > from the normal _changes endpoint. > without the index, what would be the query on the views changes? Would it only handle querying the changes by key? (ie not in a range?) - benoit
