couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Chris Anderson" <>
Subject Re: Auto-adding additional fields on PUT/POST? (datetime stamps)
Date Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:37:02 GMT
Ha, this thread seems to have split on both user and dev.

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:00 AM, Jason Huggins <> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:42 PM, Chris Anderson <> wrote:
>> I think I've had a change of heart. Damien argues that people would
>> use validation-writes to generate timestamps. But the timestamps can
>> be wrong/faked (on remote nodes) and there's no way to validate (on
>> replication) that they are correct. So putting stamp-capability into
>> the validation functions would setup false expectations. Apparently it
>> caused all sorts of trouble in Notes.
> Would this validate, then, my idea for a 2nd "meta-data db" that only
> the server had POST/PUT/DELETE rights to, but users could GET from?

Its ok to have timestamps, it would just set the wrong expectation for
CouchDB to set them inside the validation function. Because there is
no way to validate that a timestamp is correct, especially when
replicating from a remote source, setting them inside the database
logic itself is wrong. However, using something like _external (or to
otherwise reprocess with a batch) to set them or other server
variables would be fine.

It should just be clear that timestamps are the application's
business, not the database's.

Chris Anderson

View raw message