I don't see UNQL appearing on CouchDB's roadmap. B.
On 18 April 2012 13:44, Mike Kimber <[email protected]> wrote: > One thing I did not see on the roadmap was UNQL: > > Is this covered by Simpler Querying? > Is UNQL still something that interests Couchdb and if so what sort time frame > are we talking? > > Thanks > > Mike > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alon Keren [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 16 April 2012 21:28 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Help shape the future of CouchDB: your voice needed! > > Thank you guys for making this poll, and for publishing the minutes and > audio. > > I've voted, and it would be really nice to have this (or other) list as a > wish-list that couchdb users could continuously update. > > Alon > > On 16 April 2012 10:07, Mike Kimber <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Good on you for trying something different. I cast 100 votes and then >> figured that was enough. If you want my top 5 then they are: >> >> 1. Chained Views >> 2. Richer Map Reduce >> 3. Simpler Query >> 4. Performance (high update low query/read) i.e. incremental map reduce >> 5. Documentation >> >> We use CouchDB fro analytic, hence the bias above :-) >> >> Keep up the good work >> >> Thanks >> >> Mike >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Robert Newson [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: 14 April 2012 18:30 >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Help shape the future of CouchDB: your voice needed! >> >> The feedback on the mailing lists, IRC and twitter has been very >> helpful, thanks everyone for the responses! >> >> I'm going to take this feedback and provide a condensed list of >> features. I will write up each item on our wiki, then we'll reset the >> poll so that more folks can vote knowledgeably on the features. I >> suspect it'll be a couple of hours, so I'll post here when it's up. >> >> Thanks! >> B. >> >> On 14 April 2012 17:30, Bob Dionne <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I kind of agree, though I think voting is neat. I'd like to think most >> of these features are influenced by experiences with users in addition to >> internal refactoring concerns and so forth. >> > >> > It might help for everyone to see the list of features (here's a cleaned >> up version I got from BobN) [1]. As Benoit suggests, we need to >> sort/categorize them first before attaching priorities. >> > >> > One thing we might think of is the areas they might be grouped in, along >> the line of teams as Jan suggested at the summit. >> > >> > I'm happy to maintain this list as we drill down into the specifics, >> summarize email threads, and IRC chats. Some of these, .eg. moving metadata >> out of the docs, could easily require a lot of detailed discussion as they >> hit many areas of the code, so we should flesh out the details. >> > >> > It was great to meet everyone finally, I think we accomplished a whole >> lot. Thanks to Cloudant, Bocoup, and others for hosting, beers, etc.. and a >> big thanks to Sam Bisbee and Joan Touzet for detailed notes and general cat >> herding. >> > >> > Bob >> > >> > [1] >> https://github.com/bdionne/couchdb/blob/master/feature-list-from-summit.md >> > >> > >> > On Apr 14, 2012, at 11:10 AM, Klaus Trainer wrote: >> > >> >> <DISCLAIMER> >> >> I know CouchDB's internals to some degree and even contributed a few >> >> bits to its codebase a while ago (and still follow its development to >> >> some degree). However, I see myself primarily as a CouchDB user. I've >> >> been using it successfully not only in my own pet projects, but also >> >> together with a small team in a consulting project for a client. I do >> >> have experience when it comes to explaining CouchDB's ideas, concepts, >> >> and how it can be used in practice to both technical and non-technical >> >> people. >> >> </DISCLAIMER> >> >> >> >> >> >> My initial reaction to this web page was very positive (hey, great to >> >> have a collection of great new features that we can vote upon and >> >> implement!). After voting and having had some sleep on it, I'm pretty >> >> sure that it's not suitable, at least not in this way, though. The main >> >> problem that I have with it is that I'm quite convinced that if we try >> >> to implement the features corresponding to their score on the results >> >> page (http://www.allourideas.org/couchdb2012/results?more=true), we >> will >> >> either fail executing for some reason, or (the worse case), succeed and >> >> have given CouchDB a more catchy list of features instead of having it >> >> made a better piece of software. Please let me explain the issues that >> >> seem important to me. >> >> >> >> >> >> The main problem with that survey is that it does neither ask nor answer >> >> the questions that are actually important if we want to make CouchDB an >> >> even better piece of software. I collected three main questions: >> >> >> >> 1. What problem, or rather what type of problems does that feature >> >> solve? >> >> >> >> 2. What are the implications and tradeoffs for the different types of >> >> stakeholders that the feature brings with it? >> >> - For me as a CouchDB user, how will that feature affect me when I'm >> >> using CouchDB? >> >> - For me as a third-party developer, how will that feature affect my >> >> work on CouchDB modules/plugins/tools? >> >> - For me as a CouchDB core developer, how will that feature affect >> >> my work on CouchDB? >> >> - For me as as CouchDB package maintainer, how will that feature >> >> affect my work on packaging/maintaining CouchDB? >> >> - For me as as Sysadmin / CouchDB operator, how will that feature >> >> affect me on operating CouchDB? >> >> >> >> 3. How is or how can an existing problem be solved without having the >> >> feature implemented in CouchDB directly? (That is, are there >> >> modules/plugins/tools available that help me solve that problem. If not, >> >> how difficult would it be to create one?) >> >> >> >> >> >> Furthermore, I've got one additional question that, although it likely >> >> helps understanding a feature, however is not as important as the three >> >> above: >> >> >> >> -> What are the reasons that the feature has not already been >> >> implemented? >> >> >> >> This question is probably easier to answer when having a list of >> >> potential answers, for instance: >> >> >> >> * Only very few users have that issue, and most users will likely never >> >> have to deal with it. >> >> * Most users are confronted with that issue at some time, but it's so >> >> trivial to solve it without having the feature in CouchDB anyway. >> >> * It's hard to implement because (although feasible) it's just so much >> >> work. >> >> * It's hard to implement because its highly complex and very uncertain >> >> if it can be brought into CouchDB anyway. >> >> * Although easy to implement or already implemented, it hasn't been >> >> and/or won't be accepted by the CouchDB core developers for some reason. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 2012-04-13 at 20:24 -0400, Joan Touzet wrote: >> >>> Thanks to everyone who participated in the CouchDB summit in Boston >> this >> >>> week! In case you didn't know, the (25 pages!) of meeting minutes are >> >>> available for review at http://s.apache.org/ndI . >> >>> >> >>> Here's where we need YOUR HELP. During the summit, the participants >> >>> identified 38 key features we think are important for CouchDB's future. >> >>> Please help us RANK these ideas by visiting our All Our Ideas page: >> >>> >> >>> http://www.allourideas.org/couchdb2012/ >> >>> >> >>> All Our Ideas is a free/open source solution for voting based on >> >>> pairwise comparison - think Kittenwar - and is super easy to use. >> >>> >> >>> Please complete as many comparisons as you can; we'd like all the >> >>> feedback we can get. We'd be thrilled if each of you did at least 100 >> >>> comparisons. >> >>> >> >>> Thanks again for your help in determining the future of Apache CouchDB! >> >>> >> >> >> > >>
