Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 60FAC10357 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 00:10:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 82935 invoked by uid 500); 9 Apr 2014 00:10:05 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 82877 invoked by uid 500); 9 Apr 2014 00:10:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 82868 invoked by uid 99); 9 Apr 2014 00:10:04 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 09 Apr 2014 00:10:04 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy includes SPF record at spf.trusted-forwarder.org) Received: from [209.85.212.180] (HELO mail-wi0-f180.google.com) (209.85.212.180) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 09 Apr 2014 00:09:59 +0000 Received: by mail-wi0-f180.google.com with SMTP id q5so2312429wiv.13 for ; Tue, 08 Apr 2014 17:09:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=SqcOfoRVWADfhZdZYe08J+3zSZiULfWgjbUYHuNHhvc=; b=guhhZ1YX1UoHYquwi0QhmKflTujXxrggmAwObWvClGEzBEdZOStVDMv/F38Se0z+sF 3ifz+8DgfuEuTDUVfvKglQlat37EwSggbOIRnlQA8rp8zyd7Zr7uGE1NeZmGvjUtxcRQ os34xGo2i2Kl5J6m/Ixzx5S8o0SCmNKm473QfrtoUrpiuh4pxuoYq6Pn8B7jpzgybXHK sop1jrGPsUCmsIwk186p7iLuLlNBJrZlYzQM1oDWt5LPLbm6sVLqJA+C+Q0ahp1TguQZ M/CKJWVGngyb8aHOnhXD+eco7MC2/XxxNW3SFo4HClNbqB/oOqR+MMyvE9URmfsZOysg abfw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmWlnQoDC/ijDSnbwYLmAn5msBhqjCp8UvD1nsZJyjcn1X/UPgqVCl1s+tMW7xzxKBDFqo+ X-Received: by 10.180.101.166 with SMTP id fh6mr6946849wib.2.1397002177929; Tue, 08 Apr 2014 17:09:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.113.67 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Apr 2014 17:09:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [108.38.3.103] In-Reply-To: References: <3C2D3019-2D5D-492A-8A50-D471010EB870@apache.org> <82DBAF6F-9245-47B5-95D5-B299DEC15BF0@couchbase.com> From: Mark Hahn Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 17:09:17 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Is the revision field deterministic? To: user Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0418252e90e97d04f690eab6 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --f46d0418252e90e97d04f690eab6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > 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 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 wrote: > > > > > On Apr 8, 2014, at 8:34 AM, Alexander Shorin 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. > --f46d0418252e90e97d04f690eab6--