Not as yet, it's more a recognition that we should work on it than a full-fledged solution. Why not start a thread with some ideas?
B. On 18 April 2012 14:06, Mike Kimber <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok thanks. Is there any details on what "Simpler Querying" on the roadmap > list might mean? > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Newson [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 18 April 2012 14:02 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Help shape the future of CouchDB: your voice needed! > > 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! >>> >>> >>> >> >>> > >>>
