Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of bchesneau@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.215.52 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <111A4F0F-6055-435B-8FF9-8D48CC058E4D@apache.org>
References: <111A4F0F-6055-435B-8FF9-8D48CC058E4D@apache.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 17:39:32 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <CAJNb-9rjE-H2rEDDzJf7vNFSnxbPRUg0Z+aVxe-BcgF=mx8zHA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: The _security object should be versioned
From: Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com>
To: "dev@couchdb.apache.org" <dev@couchdb.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015174beaca7d927804aab54d29

--0015174beaca7d927804aab54d29
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Wednesday, August 17, 2011, Adam Kocoloski <kocolosk@apache.org> wrote:
> I believe the _security object should be versioned in order to ease
synchronization of the object between databases.  This proposal is motivated
(unsurprisingly) by BigCouch, which typically stores multiple copies of each
database in a multi-master configuration.  When the _security object is
written in BigCouch the update is issued to all available shards.  We run
into problems if an update is issued while some shards are unavailable,
because we don't know how to synchronize the divergent copies once all the
shards are back online.
>
> In my head I see us representing the _security object using a
#full_doc_info, just as we would a document.  Unlike documents the _security
object (or a pointer to it) would still be written in the header of the
database for fast access during request processing.
>
> I haven't quite decided what I think the API should look like, e.g.
whether the full document API (including attachments?) should be supported.
 Regards,
>
> Adam

I was about to open an issue in bigcouch about that :) +1 for the change
then. btw how is handle the security object during the replication?

i would be for a #full_doc_info object. Also it could be renamed as _meta. I
would really like to see a way to add meta data. so we could eventually
annotate a db or add any oyther metadata.

As i read the code it is directly added to the db header. how would it work
herecwould having one revision in the header be enough? or do you expect to
keep one pointer to the latest revision in the header?

benoit

--0015174beaca7d927804aab54d29--