couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon Metson <si...@cloudant.com>
Subject Re: Proposal for new feature: Auto Update Functions
Date Sun, 01 Jun 2014 07:48:17 GMT
Wouldn't the alternative be making update functions work in bulk be safe?  


On Saturday, 31 May 2014 at 22:30, Robert Samuel Newson wrote:

> The main trouble is loops. If couchdb edits the doc after the user edits it, this edit
is also replicated out to wherever you replicate to, which will make this edit again, and
then back again, and then back again.
>  
> In couchdb, by design, one request causes one action, not multiple, not loops. We should
think very carefully about changing that. This proposal (and its been proposed before in other
guises) seems to suffer a fatal flaw.
>  
> B.
>  
> On 31 May 2014, at 20:12, Alexander Shorin <kxepal@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The problem with update functions that they cannot be applied for bulk
> > updates. API reroute via reverse proxy cannot solve that too. I
> > believe, proposed feature assumed to handle this case.
> > --
> > ,,,^..^,,,
> >  
> >  
> > On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Joan Touzet <joant@lrtw.org> wrote:
> > > The typical solution to this is to use a reverse proxy or API layer to ensure
that all client updates go through the required document update handler. It's unclear to me
that this functionality native in CouchDB is necessary.
> > >  
> > > If you decide to move ahead with implementation , keep in mind that the 1843-feature-bigcouch
branch as that will be landing very soon. Any proposed patch should be compatible the fabric/chttpd-based
approach and support single- and multi-node (BigCouch cluster) approaches.
> > >  
> > > -Joan
> > >  
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Franck Eyraud" <franck+couchdbml@nospam.yrnm.net>
> > > To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
> > > Cc: user@couchdb.apache.org
> > > Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 8:34:57 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Proposal for new feature: Auto Update Functions
> > >  
> > > Le 30/05/2014 13:04, Dirkjan Ochtman a écrit :
> > > > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Suraj Kumar <suraj.kumar@inmobi.com>
wrote:
> > > > > What are your thoughts, both from the use-case as well as
> > > > > internals/performance of CouchDB about this?
> > > > >  
> > > >  
> > > > How is this different from document update handlers?
> > > >  
> > >  
> > > Update handlers must be called by the client to be used. Auto update
> > > functions would be called even if the client directly POST/PUT a doc to
> > > the DB (so they would be mandatory).
> > >  
> > > At first sight a good idea, it seems to me that auto update functions
> > > would cause problem during replication : the replicated doc might be
> > > different from the original one.
> > >  
> > > Franck  


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