The work-in-progress code is here: https://github.com/sagelywizard/couchdb-couch https://github.com/sagelywizard/couchdb-couch-mrview "working" branch on both repos.
For the _view filter, I'd suggest either 1) removing it or 2) leaving it as-is. For doing a view changes query for a range of keys when the key-seq index wasn't enabled, I'd suggest returning an error. "view changes by key not enabled" or some such. On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
