Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 90169 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2010 03:38:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 2 Dec 2010 03:38:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 99099 invoked by uid 500); 2 Dec 2010 03:38:57 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 98983 invoked by uid 500); 2 Dec 2010 03:38:57 -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 98975 invoked by uid 99); 2 Dec 2010 03:38:56 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 03:38:56 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of fairwinds.dp@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.173 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.216.173] (HELO mail-qy0-f173.google.com) (209.85.216.173) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 03:38:48 +0000 Received: by qyk1 with SMTP id 1so3285900qyk.11 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 19:38:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=SLgCDAVkEG6/6eF3QUK1HGOWmRXpgdbkUff23351DCU=; b=V1FZ7OQYfflTi9Q+9+Z+uBe6As69JpS/zvn68L5uio87fdbuONz4NEpMxmH4YLeWFl AdDs3QG24Myvx/ZeYWrlwFFgZIIfMdHl9T9loI6AUXqxK1MPC2sH9hxLTGKUsZ8Vtq0f 1utcyc3fgD6GDxc/PsJnhQGI3h/W6JWlDNNI8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=GMwlv190rLMYRb6HcX0/l2oPIelP+fhCMAd4fKtAmBp+hDIEdGEyN8bxekcWle74QA TV5C8Kkdl+88nfclUWlOmkP9N7eVsAQ9090+PkQ0//lYXkuvyy6fZAw6Siy8wkv2jjcv HfGKSaHXwMD1l8/Fc0rm2CYqlnqpq9CT+nItM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.217.69 with SMTP id hl5mr8267671qcb.59.1291261107528; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 19:38:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.229.213.133 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 19:38:27 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 23:38:27 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Per Document Filtering/Authorization From: David Pratt To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org A couple of small clarifications: > My thought is that we might wish to implement a special _authorization > database (or give it some flexible name similar to _users) that is not > under MVCC rules. To be clear, all I mean by this is that whatever we call the db, you ought to be able to give it a different name in the configuration in the same way you can with the _users database. > In this scenario, a key in the _authorization database corresponds to > the _type. _authorization could use a naming convention to _users that > makes it special. Sorry this should have read: _authorization could use a similar naming convention to _users that makes it special.