couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Smith <...@iriscouch.com>
Subject Re: The _security object should be versioned
Date Sat, 27 Aug 2011 03:46:28 GMT
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Filipe David Manana
<fdmanana@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Jason Smith <jhs@iriscouch.com> wrote:
>> 1. Does this require updating the replicator to update _local docs correctly?
>
> Yes
>
>> 2. Only admins can change _security. But anybody with read access can
>> change _local/*. Does couch special-case _local/security?
>
> My preference:
>
> _security would become a regular document (just a special id, which
> starts with underscore).

I vote: _local/security :P

As-is, normal users could change the document (whatever its name).

IMO, it should be a special case. Couch should breaks its own API a
little and require an admin to modify it. In other words, the HTTP API
gets simpler, document update logic gets more complex, for a net-win.

> We can still cache the latest revision in the
> db header, db updater state, whatever.
>
> This _security document (or perhaps any other starting with underscore
> in the future), would only be replicable if the replication is
> triggered by some special user with some special role (_admin,
> _server_admin, whatever).
>
> Does it sound simple and satisfies people's needs?

AFAIK, nobody wants security to ever replicate. Some people want to
manually "sync" them as an application feature.

-- 
Iris Couch

Mime
View raw message