Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of bchesneau@gmail.com designates
 74.125.83.52 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:45:26 -0800
Message-ID: 
 <CAJNb-9rRFptd93XPDD8Uu1E5YFy-vrUyCPL_ZiXNGjWJTkvFEA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Do we need 2 entry points for the replication?
From: Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Think it's time to relaunch this threads following the 2 separate
discussions that we had this morning. Actually we have 2 ways to
handle the replication:

- `_replicate` : which isn't persistent and where you can follow the
task in active tasks
- `_replicator`: wich is a plain db where any replication task is
persistent. In that case even if a replication task is finished, a
document stay in the replicator db and you will have to delete it and
compact the db from time to time.

Both are their use cases, and while i think it's good to keep the
different approaches (persisten against fire and forget), I think the
API should be more consistent by offering only 1 end point for the
replication. We could then having different parameters depending on
the replication type we want (persistent or fire and forget). Also
both should appear in the active tasks (maybe this point have been
solved since).

So I  propose to keep only one entry point : _replicate and pass the
parameter we want to it. What do you think ?

- benoit