couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Patrick Antivackis <patrick.antivac...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Fail on a simple case on replication
Date Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:52:42 GMT
Hi Jan,


>
>  Oh and by the way, in a use case where there is only one database and you
>> don't use compaction because you want to keep everything, well _rev is a
>> revision that can be used to see the history of the document.
>>
>
> You still shouldn't and that's what's in the documentation :) Just because
> you can tie a skateboard to a car and drive on the highway would make
> one hell of a fun ride, you are not advised to do so. :)
>

Don't worry ;) , on my side i not  do this,   as I know when  I will make
compaction, i run a program before compaction that will take care of
"archiving" previous rev.

 I really don't
> see the point of renaming an attribute to make it harder to understand it's
> role.
>

The suggestion here is to rename to make it _easier_ to understand
> because the connotations "revision" comes with are not entirely
> valid for CouchDB.
>
>> It's like all politically correct terminology where you use a stupid
>> expression in order to be as neutral as possible.
>>
>
> You have a point here, it is about avoiding conflict. But I don't think
> we're looking for a neutral term here, but one with a better name.
> I'd go with _access_token if it weren't too long. _rev is nice and short
> and _token might as well be _wibble. API design is hard.
>

May be it's about conflict, but as it's also a previous release, it's by
definition a revision. The fact that the revision is no more there is not
changing the fact that it's a revision.

That's why if the name is changed, the functionality to access a previous
revision should be removed.



>
>
> Cheers
> Jan
> --
>
>
>
>
>  IMO if you change this
>> attribute name it's even better to remove all possibilities to a access a
>> previous rev if still there, and change it's value by a timestamp
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> 2009/2/24 Antony Blakey <antony.blakey@gmail.com>
>>
>>
>>> On 24/02/2009, at 12:51 PM, Antony Blakey wrote:
>>>
>>> The project founder and the PMC, are all committed to that replication
>>>
>>>> model, which is derived from Notes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> BTW I'm the only one in the community that has expressed any strong
>>> desire
>>> to change this - I'm not implying any community division, just pointing
>>> out
>>> that it's both an historical artifact, and accepted by the major
>>> contributors and committers.
>>>
>>> Antony Blakey
>>> --------------------------
>>> CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
>>> Ph: 0438 840 787
>>>
>>> Plurality is not to be assumed without necessity
>>> -- William of Ockham (ca. 1285-1349)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message