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 kxepal@gmail.com designates
 209.85.212.178 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAB4uP6AOmSzCmJ=--2VA7afg0cHWw30TwCamK0=2dUv77p14Lw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BB4A8E0D-88F9-48B2-ADDC-D0A49EC0F097@gmail.com>
	<CAO5PmOq+Vu7rJ65+rr8xtLVi9mUyAdfiE4e_R0g8ttxPcgrd7Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<E701ABAA-EE68-4E40-BE09-29CE6B997BEE@gmail.com>
	<6941CDA6-21FB-4A37-A275-605BFFDE4C89@utt.fr>
	<39C72F8B-581A-4562-AC2A-59E46717F47C@gmail.com>
	<CAHdjipJKDLqXPOWwKaJovs8Ex9qoLEnbsCb5xxzWpr0PJ2fhNg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A874F1A3-203A-4986-8727-9E795237F233@gmail.com>
	<CAHdjipJtbZG9XHKHud7K-roRZfHkKhq-YVyyYh=S=KNOQjk4mw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAB4uP6AOmSzCmJ=--2VA7afg0cHWw30TwCamK0=2dUv77p14Lw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 18:27:05 +0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAHdjipLY9mXd18j7oNnwi1+Wm+NVTnUbPuAT4L2fvmMsg79gzg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: commonjs in validation docs
From: Alexander Shorin <kxepal@gmail.com>
To: "user@couchdb.apache.org" <user@couchdb.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hi Travis,

These docs are part of CouchDB project, so they are maintained as like
as whole project. Feel free to contribute is you have or found
something (;
There is special guide how to quick start:
http://docs.couchdb.org/en/latest/contributing.html
--
,,,^..^,,,


On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Travis Paul <Tr@vispaul.me> wrote:
> Ok, I feel better now. I saw Stephen's question last night and was about to
> respond but was really confused after seeing those that docs.
> Are those docs maintained by Apache or the community? Just wondering, I
> haven't seen them before.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:12 AM, Alexander Shorin <kxepal@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Stephen Bartell <snbartell@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > So then am I out of luck when it comes to requires in my validation docs?
>>
>> Why so? I'd a bit modified the example to remove views confusion:
>>
>> {
>>    "_id": "_design/test",
>>    "lib": {
>>        "security": "function user(userctx, secobj){\n  return {\n
>> is_admin: function(){ return userctx.roles.indexOf('_admin') !== -1 }
>>   \n  }  \n}\nexports.user = user;"
>>    },
>>    "validate_doc_update": "function(newdoc, olddoc, userctx, secobj)
>> {\n  user = require('lib/security').user(userctx, secobj);\n  if
>> (!user.is_admin()) { throw({forbidden: '_admin role required'}) };\n}"
>> }
>>
>> I believe the docs example is needed to be completely rewritted.
>>
>>
>> --
>> ,,,^..^,,,
>>