On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Jonathan Lange <[email protected]> wrote:
>> What do you think? > > I prefer the last one. The first two would work, but seem a little > like they would make webservice users jump through hoops. A major goal > of the webservice is for it to be convenient and easy to use. I think we can easily slip into a definitional mire here. I too want a convenient and easy to use API. Getting entirely precise figures will either be: - slow - take a lot of engineering time to make happen Getting broadly plausible figures can be made fast with a little hair for private pillars (e.g. bugs for a private distro will require some care to handle the different cases). We're missing some infrastructure to do extremely fast accurate counting : we can't just query a top level index, we have to apply a visibility test to the entire set of objects, and that (shock, horror) takes a bunch of work. Consider a 400000 bug public distro with 400 private bugs. Do we want to show 399600 to anonymous queries, or just 400000 to everyone? Even the 400000 to everyone case requires a scan because the selectivity is low and because rows can be deleted. I guess, to put this in strategist territory :P - you can have any two of : fast, correct, cheap(dev); right now we have correct, cheap(dev), but the message I'm hearing from our users and stakeholders is 'fast, cheap(dev)' : you seem to be saying 'fast, correct' :- we're not positioned to do that yet. So, I'm trying to put together an idiom which will let us do fast, cheap(dev), with the ability to iterate and get back arbitrary precision later if we really need it. I'm not convinced we do - which is why we're having this discussion :). -Rob _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
