On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Robert Newson <[email protected]> wrote:
> what Jens said. We prevent this deliberately. Crowbar it back in at > your own risk. > > B. > The code pasted in the initial mail isn't about map/reduce but a show. Imo if the user want to take more risk I don't see why not if it's feasible technically without introducing any changes to the defaults ;) Especially in shows and list. There are a lot of good reason to do that. we could even provides some limitation on what could be cal there if i red the action.js from 2008 well. - benoit > > > On 13 November 2013 15:45, Jens Alfke <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Nov 13, 2013, at 4:48 AM, Hank Knight <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> function(doc, req) { > >> var http = new XMLHttpRequest(); > >> http.open( "GET", "http://www.w3schools.com/xml/note.xml";, false ); > >> http.send( null ); > >> emit("xyz",http.responseText); > >> } > > > > Wait, is that supposed to be a map function? Whether or not this is > technically feasible, it’s an incorrect use of map/reduce. > > > > It’s critical that a map function be a ‘pure' function with no access to > outside state. That is, every time the function is called with the same > input, it must produce the same output. Otherwise you won’t get a > self-consistent index. > > > > —Jens >
