couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Randall Leeds <randall.le...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Deleted and Replacement documents and VDU behavior
Date Fri, 17 May 2013 19:12:54 GMT
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Robert Newson <rnewson@apache.org> wrote:
> oldDoc is null in this case. That matches the case that the doc is
> brand new and is surely deliberate? I asked him to post it this here
> because I do understand the benefits of it being otherwise and wanted
> to see this conversation.
>
> My position is that deleting a document should free that id for any
> future use, which is exactly what Jim does not want.
>
> I'd like to hear from folks that might have a memory of when this
> particular semantic was decided. I think it could arguably have gone
> the other way.

I know we have a clause for revivification for an update without a rev
to a deleted doc.

This proposed alternative behavior is attractive to me and if my
armchair spelunking is correct, it's actually pretty trivial. It seems
to me like we could even make a minor breaking change for 1.4 where
the old doc is always passed to VDU handlers, even if it's a
tombstone. Migration would mean updating VDU handlers to consider
oldDoc._deleted. I think many are probably using VDUs for validating
the new doc anyway, and would ignore the second parameter.

The default semantics could stay the same, but if we just passed the
tombstone to VDU handlers it would be customizable in exactly the way
Jim wants. Sounds exactly like the sort of thing VDU is for.

Mime
View raw message