> On 2. Aug 2018, at 15:37, Garren Smith <gar...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> There was a discussion on #couchdb-dev and the proposal is that instead of
> using _shards we would rather have _nodes so we could requests like /_node/
> couchdb@192.168.0.3/shards%2f0000-1ffff%2ffoo/docid
Clarification: I was proposing to re-use the existing /_node endpoint, not add
a new one :)
Best
Jan
—
>
> That then allows us to use _partition as an endpoint for the partition work
> without us confusing end users with _shard and _partition.
>
> Full IRC conversation below:
>
> 14:25 W<+Wohali> i'd say /_node/$name/$db/_shards instead though
> 14:25 W<+Wohali> from the general to the specific?
> 14:45 R<@rnewson> I don't mind /_node too much
> 14:49 J<+jan____> Wohali: I’m thinking more /_node/$x/ somewhat analogous
> to 5986 conceptually, so everything on there is per-node-only, so no notion
> of a $db, and only shards
> 14:49 J<+jan____> very nitpick of course
> 14:49 R<@rnewson> ah sorry, I am not even thinking
> 14:50 R<@rnewson> /_node/
> couchdb@192.168.0.3/shards%2f0000-1ffff%2ffoo/docid/attname (etc)
> 14:50 R<@rnewson> no need for _shards magic
> 14:50 R<@rnewson> the shards have proper database names
> 14:50 W<+Wohali> that's in line with our original thinking that under
> /_node/<nodename> was, effectively, couch_httpd
> 14:51 R<@rnewson> that is /_node/$nodename/$dbname where $dbname is what
> you'd use on port 5986 (the %2f encoding et al)
> 14:51 W<+Wohali> which would be the easiest way to get rid of 5986
> 14:51 R<@rnewson> right
> 14:51 R<@rnewson> yes
> 14:51 R<@rnewson> it would allow us to close the port but not (yet) delete
> couch_httpd_* modules
> 14:51 W<+Wohali> and makes a doc rewrite easy. so yeah, i like that
> 14:52 R<@rnewson> the things already exposed under /_node/$node don't mess
> us up? I think we were careful but it's been a while
> 14:52 R<@rnewson> in that I think it was just two global handlers
> 14:52 W<+Wohali> _stats and _system for sure are there
> 14:53 R<@rnewson> ok, those fit perfectly
> 14:53 W<+Wohali> _config too
> 14:53 R<@rnewson> ditto
> 14:53 W<+Wohali> we'll want _dbs and _nodes there
> 14:53 R<@rnewson> ok, so it really could just be everything
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 1:17 PM, Joan Touzet <woh...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>> I do agree with the confusion aspect of shards and partitions, and
>>> I'm unsure exactly the way forward here yet :(
>>
>> This is all I care about, and I'm cross that this hasn't been given
>> more serious consideration, given CouchDB is already confusing for people
>> coming from other databases. Make all the new features you want, but not
>> at the expense of usability.
>>
>> I've raised the issue but I don't have any great idea, other than to say
>> I think /db/_shard/<range> is a suitable place for shard-specific
>> operations
>> to happen.
>>
>> Help from this list is important before the new endpoint lands.
>>
>> -Joan
>>
--
Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
https://neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
