On Wednesday, August 17, 2011, Robert Newson <rnew...@apache.org> wrote:
> MVCC for _local docs would be useful for BigCouch for the same reason
> it's useful for _security docs, so your impression of what they are is
> superior to reality.
>
> B.
would also simplify the code imo. but do you mean their would also be a way
to even replicate local docs with some options?
- benoit
>
> On 17 August 2011 16:01, Jason Smith <j...@iriscouch.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 9:51 PM, Adam Kocoloski <kocol...@apache.org>
wrote:
>>>> How do you feel about migrating to a blessed _local/security document?
>>>> Maybe its latest version could be cached in the header for speed?
>>>>
>>>> Pros:
>>>>
>>>> * Couch gets (conceptually) simpler rather than more complex
>>>> * It's versioned, you get full doc semantics
>>>> * It doesn't replicate, but 3rd-party tools can pseudo-replicate it as
needed
>>>> * Design documents can enforce policies: if(doc._id == _local/security
>>>> && doc.members.length == 0) throw {forbidden:"This database may never
>>>> be public"}
>>>>
>>>> Eagerly awaiting a list of cons :)
>>>
>>> The only trouble I have with _local/security is that _local documents
are represented using #doc records instead of #full_doc_info records. As
such, they have no support for MVCC.
>>
>> I did not realize that, so one of the points I made was wrong. FWIW I
>> always assumed _local docs were normal docs, except they are
>> special-cased to neither replicate nor be represented in views.
>>
>> Thanks for the tip!
>>
>> --
>> Iris Couch
>>
>
