couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Antony Blakey <antony.bla...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Current CouchDB state?
Date Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:14:20 GMT

On 28/01/2009, at 9:33 PM, Noah Slater wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 09:30:19PM +1030, Antony Blakey wrote:
>>
>> On 28/01/2009, at 9:10 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 28 Jan 2009, at 11:31, Brian Candler wrote:
>>>
>>>> BTW, I do think the atomic nature of bulk_docs is useful and should
>>>> be kept,
>>>> as it's the only way to get "transaction" semantics at the moment.
>>>
>>> We won't be able to guarantee transactions in a multi-node setup.
>>
>> And there's a universe of single-node applications.
>
> I would prefer a predictable interface over single-node special- 
> casing.

And I would like a transactional guarantee. Why not provide  
transactional APIs that throw an exception in a multi-node setup? A  
single node is a useful and IMO common use-case. Possible more common  
that a multi-node setup.

Why penalize such a setup when both can be accommodated?

Antony Blakey
-------------
CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
Ph: 0438 840 787

A Buddhist walks up to a hot-dog stand and says, "Make me one with  
everything". He then pays the vendor and asks for change. The vendor  
says, "Change comes from within".




Mime
View raw message