On 07/01/2009, at 9:32 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
Maybe someone who understands the code issues at hand (i.e. not me)
could
summarise the options with the pros and cons outlined by the various
people in
this thread and we could have a small vote on each option to see if
there's any
clear consensus that we're missing. It might be the case that we all
disagree on
our main preference but all share a second preference.
Not sure if someone is taking this task on. I'm not, but my normalized
votes would be:
1. Remove the _temp_view facility completely, because you can use a
temporary _design view, at which point you should understand the
performance implications, and it cleans up the code.
+1
2. Leave it as _temp_view, because it does the equivalent of view
create/query/delete view in a single POST, and you can document the
performance issue.
+0.5
3. Change it to _slow_view, because compared to _temp_view, the name
should act as an immediate warning for people who haven't read the
documentation.
-1
Antony Blakey
--------------------------
CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
Ph: 0438 840 787
If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being
a damn fool about it
-- W.C. Fields
