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: local policy)
Message-ID: <5389CC71.3050109@nospam.yrnm.net>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 14:34:57 +0200
From: Franck Eyraud <franck+couchdbml@nospam.yrnm.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
CC: "user@couchdb.apache.org" <user@couchdb.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Proposal for new feature: Auto Update Functions
References: 
 <CABadZmJJnZeSVbsG6tLqgPUo5+1KHAqcc92XEQqMF4iS4kP7GQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKmKYaCnh2XsfDpUvivcb40pYbDc-k_CioXc7KH_07JWW7KB3Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKmKYaCnh2XsfDpUvivcb40pYbDc-k_CioXc7KH_07JWW7KB3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

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