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 randall.leeds@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.214.177 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAAL6JQgWJY5njOnJbqRVPrY-oVEfSRQwvWV+-gXy8mW96DFjpQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20130516144732.0dda4bbf@svilendobrev.com>
	<CAL+Y1nvsOsPpeH5XH-MnqCHqadYdKJ_UmiWptoOK6o-K=TgQFw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAL6JQh6wnLuvs8GFSO88z3CGBVw5DTVSST5wNcX33YjG-QZSQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL+Y1nsiFUtvYFW5GAAOFTyLcctWO6rKcFvu-79hx6F-MdaCiw@mail.gmail.com>
	<70BAE84F-500B-4372-A81D-EABDD80B5A0B@sri.com>
	<CABvT1DGaJ-r=11=36N5MNYggZPa454DMti7fYRnTufjU44BfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8F88329-DA27-48A2-8DBC-BAF818DE1FB8@sri.com>
	<CABvT1DFKeEjNALUkw4wp-6hH-YMzFGRYzhPFuBu_a9zzuXsDEA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B2E90E18-BC25-4CEA-A635-5FC166608687@sri.com>
	<CABvT1DE5SNU4EVFfxfjv7a528k1es3QxLpyc-=EhshvY1RuZkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<89B403E2-01B6-472C-87B3-D77F3E8BB90E@sri.com>
	<CAAL6JQiFTqS5TxywH-RcvZUYxNxcUpmnnOaea_t+EjVN6BionA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABvT1DFSbYWpo2bER9h4MNBf_jge7BU0Gt6eq=Nn3vXYRizdEQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAL6JQgWJY5njOnJbqRVPrY-oVEfSRQwvWV+-gXy8mW96DFjpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 01:55:41 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAAL6JQi+CZ2+J1Xr3dvmyQpryLewKaUF=XNE3nB5kGprZawYJw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Deleted and Replacement documents and VDU behavior
From: Randall Leeds <randall.leeds@gmail.com>
To: "dev@couchdb.apache.org" <dev@couchdb.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Randall Leeds <randall.leeds@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I just realized that it's not clear which revision should be provided
when attempting to revive a deleted doc, since there may have been
several revision histories which ended in deletes and there is no
previous rev specified.