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/ > >
