From dev-return-3817-apmail-couchdb-dev-archive=couchdb.apache.org@couchdb.apache.org Tue Apr 07 12:52:33 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 18828 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2009 12:52:33 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 7 Apr 2009 12:52:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 88032 invoked by uid 500); 7 Apr 2009 12:52:32 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 87944 invoked by uid 500); 7 Apr 2009 12:52:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 87934 invoked by uid 99); 7 Apr 2009 12:52:32 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Apr 2009 12:52:32 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of b.candler@pobox.com designates 207.106.133.19 as permitted sender) Received: from [207.106.133.19] (HELO sasl.smtp.pobox.com) (207.106.133.19) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Apr 2009 12:52:23 +0000 Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B64C1A8AE1; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 08:52:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mappit (unknown [80.45.95.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 21A7CA8AE0; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 08:51:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from brian by mappit with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LrAmT-0004Bw-6e; Tue, 07 Apr 2009 13:51:57 +0100 Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 13:51:57 +0100 From: Brian Candler To: Damien Katz Cc: dev@couchdb.apache.org Subject: Re: Removing PUT 409? Message-ID: <20090407125157.GA16013@uk.tiscali.com> References: <3B257AE4-8A98-4486-BC42-BA6D9A9423BA@apache.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3B257AE4-8A98-4486-BC42-BA6D9A9423BA@apache.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: E2DF5630-2372-11DE-962F-BB14ECB1AA3C-28021239!a-sasl-fastnet.pobox.com X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 12:21:17PM -0400, Damien Katz wrote: > The interactive conflict behavior in CouchDB is useful for completely > eliminating persisted conflicts in a lot of replicated circumstances, > such as master-slave replication, or in instances where different > documents will be only edited at a single node (like documents > pertaining to different branches offices) but replicated amongst all > nodes. That's fine. But why doesn't the same argument apply to the removed _bulk_docs transaction feature?