couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Nolen <>
Subject Re: Question about document copies & replication
Date Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:42:44 GMT
Many thanks for the informative reply!

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 12:52 AM, Chris Anderson <> wrote:
> To publish a message, the user saves a document to a "publish"
> database. At replication time this is pushed to the global firehose.


> Users pull from the firehose(s) using filtered replication to only
> copy docs authored by people they're interested in.

This isn't available yet right?

> The user can also maintain an inbox in the cloud. Eg the host of the
> global firehose (or other hosts) can maintain a database that people
> can write to but not read from. Then as a user I can send direct
> messages to other people's inboxes, which they will see at replication
> time.

Yes user/inbox is replicated from the server.

> I'd make the private database it's own db, and make another db for
> replicated content. I'm thinking the private data is gonna be
> important things like medical records and stuff, so I don't want to
> just mix it with everything else.

Good idea.

> This is why the user should save to the publish db, (eg instead of the
> "drafts" db), and let replication send the publish db to the firehose.
> Then it becomes clear that the private db is only for data I want to
> avoid replicating except very carefully.

Now that you talk about this approach I think something like the following
is better until filtered replication or replicating only certain documents

user/inbox - replicated from server to client
user/private - new and unpublished documents go here
user/public - publish documents go here (and erased from user/private),
replicated to user/feed and the firehose on the server
user/feed - user/public and user/private replicated here (merged), general
queries happen here

> Technically you can do what you're shooting for, but it might be
> better to use replication instead of saving to multiple dbs. I've been
> thinking the replicator deserves an option to specify an array of
> docids to replicate, which could be useful in this application.

This would be awesome.

Thanks again.

Glad to help,
> Chris
> > Thanks much,
> > David
> >
> --
> Chris Anderson

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message