couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: validation functions
Date Sat, 17 Jan 2009 21:49:49 GMT
Jan,

My gut feeling is that this ordering should be specified as undefined.
The assumption being that users need to make sure their design docs
don't rely on any given ordering.

Either that, or provide a mechanism for people to order their docs
arbitrarily. I'd lean towards the first because its less complex, but
the ordering the validations may be useful in certain situations.
Though, ordering in terms of collation order seems like not a good
thing to rely on.

Paul

On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi dev list, Damien,
>
> I noticed when a database has multiple design docs with a
> `validate_doc_update` function each. The validation functions
> are called in the reverse string collation order of the design
> document's id.
>
> The function in `_design/b` gets executed before the one
> in `_design/a`, which comes before `_design/1`.
>
> The relevant code is in couch_db_update.erl:
>
> get_design_docs(#db{fulldocinfo_by_id_btree=Btree}=Db) ->
>    couch_btree:foldl(Btree, <<"_design/">>,
>        fun(#full_doc_info{id= <<"_design/",_/binary>>}=FullDocInfo, _Reds,
> AccDocs) ->
>            {ok, [couch_db:make_doc(Db, FullDocInfo) | AccDocs]};
>        (_, _Reds, AccDocs) ->
>            {stop, AccDocs}
>        end,
>        []).
>
> Reversing the order of design docs in the AccDocs variable is
> easy. The question is which behaviour do we want or is there
> a reason for the reverse-rule?
>
> Cheers
> Jan
> --
>

Mime
View raw message