[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-837?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12892815#action_12892815
]
Sebastian Cohnen commented on COUCHDB-837:
------------------------------------------
My first thought was something like: stale=ok&suppress_update=true (I like
readable parameter names)
But what about keeping stale=ok in its current form for backward compatibility
and introduce a new parameter? stale=ok is somewhat understandable (and known),
but combining it with this new behavior feels kind of odd to me. This would
"free" the mindset and you don't need to construct a new parameter in addition
to stale=ok or a new value for the stale param. And no, I don't have a good
idea for a name for this case :)
> Adding stale=partial
> --------------------
>
> Key: COUCHDB-837
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-837
> Project: CouchDB
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Environment: all released and unreleased versions
> Reporter: Filipe Manana
> Assignee: Filipe Manana
> Attachments: stale_partial.patch
>
>
> Inspired by Matthias' latest post, at
> http://www.paperplanes.de/2010/7/26/10_annoying_things_about_couchdb.html,
> section "Views are updated on read access", I added a new value to the
> "stale" option named "partial" (possibly we need to find a better name).
> It behaves exactly like "stale=ok" but after replying to the client, it
> triggers a view update in the background.
> Patch attached.
> If no one disagrees this isn't a good feature, or suggest a better parameter
> value name, I'll commit.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
