Ben Bangert wrote:
On Oct 1, 2008, at 8:42 PM, Paul Davis wrote:
I think what you're running into is the CouchDB != SQL impedance
mismatch. Its not overt and I see you're thinking about this, but I
still manage to not see my RDBMS prejudices after working on this for
a couple months.
I'm not a total virgin to non-RDBMS thinking, as I've used XML db's
rather heavily, along with Google Datastore.
So in an XML db, or even Google Datastore, I'd store all the comments
for a post inside the post itself. No worries about conflicts because
I can issue multiple updates to the XML document to insert additional
comment nodes.
but each comment is owned by a different person. If they were all on the
post object then the commenters would need update access to the post,
which sounds like a bad thing, when all they want is create access to
comment objects and maybe update/delete of their own comments. I don't
disagree with your point that partial updates might be handy and
retrieving multiple documents assembled on the server would be good too.
Even if the security layer is hypothetical at the moment it seems better
to design an application as if it was there.
