couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dale Harvey <d...@arandomurl.com>
Subject Re: Is the revision field deterministic?
Date Wed, 09 Apr 2014 00:26:15 GMT
Sorry, I meant in the case in which the same document was posted to
different servers that replicated


On 9 April 2014 01:09, Mark Hahn <mark@hahnca.com> wrote:

> > by not conflicting the users loses information
>
> By not conflicting, do you mean two docs with different content having same
> rev?  How is this possible?  I thought the original poster on this thread
> said he was wrong about that.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Dale Harvey <dale@arandomurl.com> wrote:
>
> > Yup I almost mentioned PouchDB when I seen this thread come up, from an
> > external implementors perspective it isnt great that CouchDB uses the
> > internal erlang binary term format to create revisions, its possible to
> > implement it compatibly but decided against it due to extra deps +
> > complexity
> >
> > From an API perspective I believe its a leaky abstraction, I havent
> tested
> > this but it seems like if the binary term format changes between erlang
> > versions then the same code can have different behaviour, similiarly
> > possible between couch versions.
> >
> > Also I just dont think its a great idea, by not conflicting the users
> loses
> > information, its easy for audit software to force conflicts by adding the
> > target id to the documents, but yeh it still makes me feel weird.
> >
> > And yup while unfortunately named, Couchbase Lite is very much along the
> > same lines as PouchDB, with a different target platform. (we even stole
> the
> > same replication optimisations :))
> >
> > Cheers
> > Dale
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 9 April 2014 00:36, Jens Alfke <jens@couchbase.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Apr 8, 2014, at 8:34 AM, Alexander Shorin <kxepal@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Jens, is that was another uncanny attempt to adv. unrelated product
> > > > without providing relevant information? These actions only confuses
> > > > people forcing them thinking that Couchbase and CouchDB are the
> > > > similar products while they don't.
> > >
> > > Nope. Couchbase *Lite* and CouchDB _are_ very similar. They have the
> > exact
> > > same data model, a 95% similar REST API*, and can replicate with each
> > > other. (The implementations are entirely different, though, because
> > > Couchbase Lite is meant to be embedded in mobile apps.)
> > >
> > > Couchbase Lite is at least as similar to CouchDB as PouchDB is, and no
> > one
> > > complains about PouchDB being mentioned here.
> > >
> > > Couchbase *Server* is a different beast entirely. It was wrong of me to
> > > discuss it here last week; apologies again.
> > >
> > > I know the names are confusing. Couchbase-the-company was named back
> when
> > > it was very much about CouchDB, which then changed for complicated
> > > technical reasons. Couchbase Lite was originally called TouchDB, but
> was
> > > renamed for branding/marketing reasons outside my control.
> > >
> > > --Jens
> > >
> > > * CBL is missing some of the admin features, like user accounts and
> > > _restart, that don't make sense for an embedded database; and it adds a
> > > couple of replication optimizations that I've been discussing on the
> > > 'replication' list here.
> >
>

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