couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Antony Blakey <>
Subject Re: Restricting user interactions to a single document -- was [VOTE] Apache CouchDB 0.9.0 release
Date Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:21:43 GMT

On 26/03/2009, at 6:18 AM, Tim Parkin wrote:

> I don't want to have to repeat myself but *it's not about the
> consistency or atomicity*. It's about being able to make two or more
> changes in a single request (via a UI or API) and if the last one  
> fails,
> being able to roll the first ones back and tell the user "Sorry,
> something went wrong, would you like to try again" instead of "you  
> have
> a partial success, how would you like to deal with it?"

In what way is that not atomicity?

I have a patch that adds/restores fail-on-conflict bulk update  
behaviour (ie. your rollback requirement, but with no intermediate  
state). It's 10-15 lines depending on formatting, i.e. fairly trivial,  
so it should be easy to keep it on HEAD. I trigger it explicitly by  
adding fail-on-conflict: true to the top level json in the bulk  
request, which means that existing tests pass because the default  
semantics are unpatched.

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

All that is required for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.

View raw message