couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benoit Chesneau <>
Subject Re: Do we need 2 entry points for the replication?
Date Thu, 19 Jan 2012 21:59:21 GMT
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Robert Newson <> wrote:
> I would prefer to see a single /_replicate entrypoint, with, say,
> "persistent":true to indicate that the replication settings should be
> stored. We would also need an API to list all persistent replication
> tasks and one to delete them. Which would look a lot like the
> _replicator database, though much more controlled (no public passwords
> for those jobs that require auth).


> I think it's too late, though. There's work on master to fix the
> issues with _replicator now (and the similar ones in _user). While I
> don't like the approach, it does solve the problem.
Even if it needs another thread, can you elaborate on that? I had
started some work for

and I'm curious to know the problems you see in.

> Bottom line: It's my opinion that _replicator (and _user) were wrongly
> exposed as full-blooded databases when all  we needed to use was the
> database format (and carefully curate API endpoints). But, alas, that
> train has sailed.

Imo such dbs should be hidden, and we could only provide entry points
accessing to them. For example having all systems dbs under /couchdb/
prefix and hide them for others excepts admins. Just like postgres
does. I'm agree it was a mistake to expose them. I think we should
stop to do it in near future imo.

- benoit

View raw message