[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-837?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12892815#action_12892815 ] 

Sebastian Cohnen commented on COUCHDB-837:
------------------------------------------

My first thought was something like: stale=ok&suppress_update=true (I like readable parameter names)

But what about keeping stale=ok in its current form for backward compatibility and introduce a new parameter? stale=ok is somewhat understandable (and known), but combining it with this new behavior feels kind of odd to me. This would "free" the mindset and you don't need to construct a new parameter in addition to stale=ok or a new value for the stale param. And no, I don't have a good idea for a name for this case :)

> Adding stale=partial
> --------------------
>
>                 Key: COUCHDB-837
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-837
>             Project: CouchDB
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>         Environment: all released and unreleased versions
>            Reporter: Filipe Manana
>            Assignee: Filipe Manana
>         Attachments: stale_partial.patch
>
>
> Inspired by Matthias' latest post, at http://www.paperplanes.de/2010/7/26/10_annoying_things_about_couchdb.html, section "Views are updated on read access", I added a new value to the "stale" option named "partial" (possibly we need to find a better name).
> It behaves exactly like "stale=ok" but after replying to the client, it triggers a view update in the background.
> Patch attached.
> If no one disagrees this isn't a good feature, or suggest a better parameter value name, I'll commit.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.