Proedurally, CouchDB 2.0 is effectively in feature freeze - we need to get it out the door, it is far overdue.
Looking at changing basic functionality like _rewrite can come after 2.0 is done, in the 3.0 timeframe. -Joan ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Johs. E" <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected] Developers" <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Sent: Friday, September 4, 2015 8:21:12 AM > Subject: CouchDB _rewrite > > Fellow CouchDB enthusiasts, > > Let me quote a dialogue I had the other day with a colleague on > Couchapps and _rewrite: > > > > I would like to know what is so horrible with the vhost/rewrite > > > of CouchDB > > You must concentrate all rules in one place, that is totally out of > > idea ‘one app – one ddoc’ > > Capturing mechanics is outrageously ugly and limiting. You can‘t > > capture on query, only on path, and in very limiting manner. > > Obsolete for at least 15 years. > > Rule lists are flat – they must be trees, since it‘s json, not SQL > > table of directory with files. > > It‘s all very brittle, error prone and imposes all possible hurdles > > during debug – no err messages, no log, no validator. > > And most important: it creates illusion, that it can fit everything > > – but it only fits small static-like sites. > > > Is it something that could be fed to the developers? > > > > Don‘t think anybody of them is interested. This functions assumed > > obsolete or impractical by the vast majority of community, as I > > see. And I agree with them. > > Still with its limitations, I love _rewrite > You direct the vhost to db/_design/api/_rewrite > using so-called “unsafe” rewrites, you create an API for your many > databases and their couchapps there. > It works beautifully. > That is at Cloudant. I think I learned from an earlier discussion > that the lack of a “default vhost” is a problem outside Cloudant. > Now Cloudant does not offer SSL unless you enter into a relationship > with your local IBM organization and buy a dedicated cluster under a > std IBM contract, so > > Of course I would like to see a better rewrite function, my priority > would be > A tree structure of rules > Capture query in the “to” > That would be a great enhancement to go with version 2.0 > > br > Johs > >
