+1 This one sounds good. It clearly makes obvious the update semantics.
On Tue, 2010-07-27 at 17:27 -0400, Filipe Manana (JIRA) wrote: > [ > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-837?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12892934#action_12892934 > ] > > Filipe Manana commented on COUCHDB-837: > --------------------------------------- > > So, having a: > > "stale=update_after" > > Anyone against? > > > 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. >
