couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jan Lehnardt <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Fail on a simple case on replication
Date Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:06:15 GMT

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 :)


> 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.


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
View raw message