How about _test_view? Kinda gets the point across that it's for
testing.
geir
On Jan 5, 2009, at 5:04 AM, Paul Davis wrote:
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Christopher Lenz <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 04.01.2009, at 19:38, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
switched.
we happily break the API pre 0.9 :)
I'd like to throw in a bit of caution here. I agree that API
breakage is
totally acceptable prior to 1.0, but it shouldn't be done just for
fun. This
renaming of _temp_view to _slow_view is IMHO a bit on the silly
side and
definitely not worth breaking client code, plus anything written
about
couchdb outside the space we control (blog articles, etc).
In general, I think that API changes, even at this point, should be
done
with care. Building a thriving ecosystem of client applications and
libraries is going to get pretty tough when people get the
perception that
things change around arbitrarily for no good reason.
But even ignoring backwards compatibility, I'm not a fan of this
change.
_temp_view makes the difference between temp views and regular
views pretty
clear in that they are one-off views that don't get stored. Now, if
someone
doesn't understand that that makes them slow, they better get back to
reading the basics about how views in CouchDB work. Also, "slow
views"
aren't really any slower than, erm, "fast views" when you run
either only
once. And when are we going to rename /_view to /_fast_view to make
it clear
that they're "faster"? And are we seriously going to refer to temp
views as
"slow views" from now on? Really? :P
So, to summarize, I think this change is misguided, and breaking
compatibility for no good reason rubs me the wrong way. This is only
slightly offset by the fact that client code shouldn't be using
temp views
in the first place.
Cheers,
Chris
Little late, but I'm going to throw my hat in with cmlenz's. I caught
the tail end of the IRC conversation and mentioned _dev_views or
_debug_views and no one seemed to think about the actual implications.
As German Chris pointed out, 'slow views' implies a 'fast views'.
That said, I'm all for renaming/removing/disabling the temp view
system. Its something that was intended as a testing system and should
only be used as such. Making that obvious to newer users should be a
priority. I just don't think '_slow_views' has that immediate
connotation.
HTH,
Paul Davis
On 4 Jan 2009, at 12:52, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
is it deprecated or switched?
E.g. will _temp_view still work with a message to the log, or is
it a
404?
On Jan 3, 2009, at 8:20 PM, Chris Anderson wrote:
Couchers,
Please note that we've renamed a path in the HTTP api.
/mydb/_temp_view has been changed to /mydb/_slow_view to
discourage
people from using it on anything other than a debugging basis.
Futon
should work just as it has been, but any 3rd party libraries
that make
use of _temp_view are encouraged to transition to views stored in
design docs.
I've gone through the wiki with a quick find/replace (There's a
lot of
good stuff in there I hadn't seen before) so now the wiki is
peppered
with a lot of _slow_views code examples. Anyone who converts
those to
use design docs gets a bonus high five.
--
Christopher Lenz
cmlenz at gmx.de
http://www.cmlenz.net/
