On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Filipe David Manana <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Jason Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> 1. Does this require updating the replicator to update _local docs correctly? > > Yes > >> 2. Only admins can change _security. But anybody with read access can >> change _local/*. Does couch special-case _local/security? > > My preference: > > _security would become a regular document (just a special id, which > starts with underscore).
I vote: _local/security :P As-is, normal users could change the document (whatever its name). IMO, it should be a special case. Couch should breaks its own API a little and require an admin to modify it. In other words, the HTTP API gets simpler, document update logic gets more complex, for a net-win. > We can still cache the latest revision in the > db header, db updater state, whatever. > > This _security document (or perhaps any other starting with underscore > in the future), would only be replicable if the replication is > triggered by some special user with some special role (_admin, > _server_admin, whatever). > > Does it sound simple and satisfies people's needs? AFAIK, nobody wants security to ever replicate. Some people want to manually "sync" them as an application feature. -- Iris Couch
