2009/5/25 Chris Anderson <[email protected]>: > Right, but at least in those cases I can diff the document to figure > out what the conflict is. The bulk transactions you describe could > become conflicting and before I could save the doc I'm working on, I'd > have to figure which other doc was causing the conflict.
The idea is that you can ask for a conflict earlier if that's what's going to help. If you need more context then arguably there should be a way to ask for it to not be thrown away. If you have a conflict in the aforementioned sorted collections and/or graph nodes you need to know the state of other documents to merge correctly. I still think this is out of scope anyway. For a proper merge you'd want the common ancestor documents as well, not just the symmetric difference. This is best done by implementing a versioning model on top of couchdb. But to implement this model consistently you arguably still need atomic primitives. > I'm not sure > why not to just call the larger unit of data a single document, if > that's how you want to use it. So basically instead of using multiple documents all of my data would go in one document? Why didn't I think of that ;-)
