Mailing-List: contact user-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of b.candler@pobox.com
 designates 64.74.157.62 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=date:from:to:cc
	:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type
	:in-reply-to; q=dns; s=sasl; b=EyQkRHDC3mGhY0Mm8ifHN26lHBXZ1S4xq
	M2t+DZ4HeAFW3gbV2Zdph2wIOiY7kkfdVES0pI6tRcoZOp0e1KR/iR8B6VC8mt6g
	HFZE6uNRvBmi7HSVuE8CVDc657gFvxRZdU42Ci20l/Kztc4nswaH2Nn/BxxBgmHn
	IAheVDJ6qM=
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:40:43 +0000
From: Brian Candler <B.Candler@pobox.com>
To: Adam Kocoloski <kocolosk@apache.org>
Cc: user@couchdb.apache.org
Subject: Re: What happens with a document, if a conflict is not resolved?
Message-ID: <20091031104043.GA12386@uk.tiscali.com>
References: <01E98E17-B6AF-4F2F-9752-23CE46D51336@apache.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <01E98E17-B6AF-4F2F-9752-23CE46D51336@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 08:37:36PM -0400, Adam Kocoloski wrote:
> I like where your head's at on this, Brian.  I should mention that it  
> *is* possible to retrieve all conflict revisions of a document with one 
> request:
>
> GET /db/bob?open_revs=all

Ah, that's a new one to me. I will update the wiki when I get a chance.

As Damian pointed out, you could implement resolve-on-get in a client layer
in front of CouchDB. The problem is, now I look over my own code, is that I
don't actually use a plain GET very much at all. Usually I fetch documents
via a view and multi-key fetch.

I tried _all_docs?conflicts=true and I didn't get the conflicts (I haven't
tried _all_docs?open_revs=all yet). Maybe this doesn't make sense until the
view itself can receive all revs and decide how to merge the conflicts.

> I think I'd be in favor of making the default GET include all conflicts, 
> but probably in the _conflicts field so as to minimize the changes to the 
> current API.

As a first step, that would be unlikely to break anyone, would make it clear
when a conflict exists, and would simplify the API by removing the need for
?conflicts=true. So I'd vote for that.

Regards,

Brian.