Antony Blakey wrote: > I agree that hiding the distinction between single-node and multi-node > operation is not a good idea. > > However I think this discussion has come and gone, the outcome being > that a) couchdb requires, by design, that no functionality is provided > that cannot be provided under a loosely couple cluster model without > distributed transaction support; and b) therefore, atomic bulk docs e.g. > all-or-nothing-fail-on-conflict will not be provided by couchdb. >
If this is so is there any chance of an official final word so we can make a decision about whether to use a fork. > I require this functionality, and don't care about *loosely coupled* > clustering, and hence have to maintain a fork that retains this > functionality. This fork cannot be called CouchDB unless it is purely a > point-in-time snapshot from the subversion repository - anything else is > regarded as a derived work by Apache, understandably. > If you could let me know more about the fork, I'd be interested in what is involved in keeping it in sync.. (if this issue is closed that is). Tim
