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 13:13:12 GMT
2009/2/24 Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org>

>
> On 24 Feb 2009, at 13:52, Patrick Antivackis wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Haha, language ambiguity for the win :) I meant conflict between
> users applying prior understanding of the term "revision" to CouchDB
> revisions causing a conflict. I did not mean using _rev as a token to
> manage write conflicts for a document. I need to be more careful with
> these words :)
>

Don't worry i'm neither english speaking native too.


>
>
>
>  That's why if the name is changed, the functionality to access a previous
>> revision should be removed.
>>
>
> I could see that being a valid conclusion and I think that would be
> covered with disabling the feature by default and make it an opt-in
> like Damien suggested. We also could just nuke it completely and
> wait for complaints before reconsidering making it an opt-in.
>
>
Great so my vote becomes : -0

>
>
> 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