Thanks Joan, we will prepare a strong case for it — probably needs to be part of a the “couchapp story” discussion that we had a while ago johs
> On 04 Sep 2015, at 19:01, Joan Touzet <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 >> >>
