couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexander Shorin <kxe...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Proposal for new feature: Auto Update Functions
Date Sat, 31 May 2014 19:12:01 GMT
The problem with update functions that they cannot be applied for bulk
updates. API reroute via reverse proxy cannot solve that too. I
believe, proposed feature assumed to handle this case.
--
,,,^..^,,,


On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Joan Touzet <joant@lrtw.org> wrote:
> The typical solution to this is to use a reverse proxy or API layer to ensure that all
client updates go through the required document update handler. It's unclear to me that this
functionality native in CouchDB is necessary.
>
> If you decide to move ahead with implementation , keep in mind that the 1843-feature-bigcouch
branch as that will be landing very soon. Any proposed patch should be compatible the fabric/chttpd-based
approach and support single- and multi-node (BigCouch cluster) approaches.
>
> -Joan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Franck Eyraud" <franck+couchdbml@nospam.yrnm.net>
> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
> Cc: user@couchdb.apache.org
> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 8:34:57 AM
> Subject: Re: Proposal for new feature: Auto Update Functions
>
> Le 30/05/2014 13:04, Dirkjan Ochtman a écrit :
>> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Suraj Kumar <suraj.kumar@inmobi.com> wrote:
>>> What are your thoughts, both from the use-case as well as
>>> internals/performance of CouchDB about this?
>> How is this different from document update handlers?
> Update handlers must be called by the client to be used. Auto update
> functions would be called even if the client directly POST/PUT a doc to
> the DB (so they would be mandatory).
>
> At first sight a good idea, it seems to me that auto update functions
> would cause problem during replication : the replicated doc might be
> different from the original one.
>
> Franck

Mime
View raw message