couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Smith <>
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
<> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Jason Smith <> 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

View raw message