Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of adam.kocoloski@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.213.52 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Subject: Re: The replicator needs a superuser mode
From: Adam Kocoloski <kocolosk@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAAL6JQhJ+9pNiZZbiCd3DGEgTiNNCw=rNZnX_smS+jQXUF8faw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 21:47:20 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D97A25CB-5D11-43B3-B68E-1A6C48490E5B@apache.org>
References: <EBDEACDE-17FD-4DD5-8E67-D5A13D69F88E@apache.org>
 <4E4AB70F.5040302@fiset.ca> <C3921F01-7545-4B5C-974D-B6BF3E7517EE@apache.org>
 <CAAL6JQifLeSUjBDD9SpVs2Mudg0tBajp63u1_=0MhD=4wjQkzA@mail.gmail.com>
 <92F4FAA3-8193-470A-B339-67DA369071B8@apache.org>
 <CAAL6JQhJ+9pNiZZbiCd3DGEgTiNNCw=rNZnX_smS+jQXUF8faw@mail.gmail.com>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org

On Aug 16, 2011, at 8:20 PM, Randall Leeds wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 17:03, Adam Kocoloski <kocolosk@apache.org> =
wrote:
>=20
>> On Aug 16, 2011, at 5:46 PM, Randall Leeds wrote:
>>=20
>>> -1 on _skip_validation and new role
>>>=20
>>> One can always write a validation document that considers the role, =
no?
>> Why
>>> can't users who need this functionality craft a validation function =
for
>> this
>>> purpose? This sounds like a blog post and not a database feature.
>>=20
>> Blech, really?
>>=20
>> Q: What request do I issue to guarantee all my documents are stored =
in this
>> other database?
>>=20
>> A: Unpossible.
>>=20
>> Practically speaking we need it at Cloudant because we use =
replication to
>> move users' databases between clusters.  If it's not seen as =
generally
>> useful that's ok, just surprising.  Best,
>>=20
>=20
> I understand the motivation a little better now. I'm not sure it's =
generally
> useful. I think _dump/_load might be, but I'd rather see users craft =
around
> validation as part of their replication strategy rather than increase =
the
> query option population.
>=20
> I'm not sure I'm against admin user context bypassing validation docs,
> though.

That's interesting.  It sounds like you're motivated to minimize the =
surface area of the API.  I can respect that.  I'm not sure I like =
_admins automatically bypassing validation, though, because we already =
require _admin to update _design docs, so it's not as if we can make the =
use of _admin particularly rare.  Will think on it.  Best,

Adam=