incubator-couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Chris Anderson" <jch...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: drill into a doc with a GET?
Date Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:38:33 GMT
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Antony Blakey <antony.blakey@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> IMO the issue for PATCH is not working out what to do. The PMC have asserted
> that no such mechanism will be incorporated unless the diff format is an
> RFC/ID.

I don't recall any such PMC proclamation. I remember the opinions of a
few comitters, but it would be absurd to reject good code based merely
on the workings of a standards body. If you want to see PATCH in
CouchDB, the best thing to do is add ASF code to the JIRA. We can't
promise ahead of time that we'll apply it right away (or at all) but
it would be a good next move.

I think CouchDB should have PATCH (for update efficiency), but I'm
happy to put that off for some time. People are still learning
documented oriented best practices, and PATCH is enough like partial
update, to give people the wrong idea about how to avoid document
contention.

Personally, PATCH seems like a post-1.0 feature. If a patch for PATCH
were to come along, I'm sure the PMC would consider it seriously - the
existence of an RFC for JSON-diff would not be the deciding factor in
its adoption. Reducing on-the-wire weight is a noble cause, but
encouraging devs to update documents more than they should is
problematic in my opinion.

CouchDB has a habit of manifesting to its clients, the costs it
assumes in performing an operation. This is not the most efficient way
to run, but it does make clear the modes of operation that won't make
Couch the bottleneck at very large N and high concurrency. PATCH sets
up an efficiency asymmetry by reducing network load, but not disk
write load. I guess I'd advise against using PATCH while designing an
app, but could see its utility in practice.

-- 
Chris Anderson
http://jchris.mfdz.com

Mime
View raw message