couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Antony Blakey <>
Subject Re: Bulk Docs
Date Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:14:20 GMT

On 12/03/2009, at 10:47 PM, Tim Parkin wrote:

> I noticed a commit that suggests "atomic" bulk docs will no longer be
> working on trunk. Is now the right time to discuss the possibility of
> keeping a version of "atomic" bulk docs somewhere in couchdb rather  
> than
> removing the functionality?
> I think I understand that there is a philosophical reason for not  
> having
> it in (I think the reasoning is "don't have features in couchdb that
> won't work distributed" but I may be wrong ) but I personally am of  
> the
> opinion that trying to hide the difference between a single couchdb  
> and
> network of couchdbs at the cost of removing functionality that has
> legitimate use is not a good idea.
> Anyway - I don't want to start a thread prematurely but also didn't  
> want
> to miss adding my opinion. I'm happy to hang fire on discussion until
> later though..

I agree that hiding the distinction between single-node and multi-node  
operation is not a good idea.

However I think this discussion has come and gone, the outcome being  
that a) couchdb requires, by design, that no functionality is provided  
that cannot be provided under a loosely couple cluster model without  
distributed transaction support; and b) therefore, atomic bulk docs  
e.g. all-or-nothing-fail-on-conflict will not be provided by couchdb.

I require this functionality, and don't care about *loosely coupled*  
clustering, and hence have to maintain a fork that retains this  
functionality. This fork cannot be called CouchDB unless it is purely  
a point-in-time snapshot from the subversion repository - anything  
else is regarded as a derived work by Apache, understandably.

Antony Blakey
CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
Ph: 0438 840 787

Don't anthropomorphize computers. They hate that.

View raw message