On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Robert Newson <rnew...@apache.org> wrote: > I would prefer to see a single /_replicate entrypoint, with, say, > "persistent":true to indicate that the replication settings should be > stored. We would also need an API to list all persistent replication > tasks and one to delete them. Which would look a lot like the > _replicator database, though much more controlled (no public passwords > for those jobs that require auth). >
+1 > I think it's too late, though. There's work on master to fix the > issues with _replicator now (and the similar ones in _user). While I > don't like the approach, it does solve the problem. > We can break it eventually and I think we should consider it sooner rather than later. > Bottom line: It's my opinion that _replicator (and _user) were wrongly > exposed as full-blooded databases when all we needed to use was the > database format (and carefully curate API endpoints). But, alas, that > train has sailed. > I seem to recall someone else with a similar opinion even when these things were being designed. ;) Also, what kind of crazy sailing trains do you brits have over there and how do I get a ticket to ride on one? > B. > > On 19 January 2012 21:45, Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Think it's time to relaunch this threads following the 2 separate >> discussions that we had this morning. Actually we have 2 ways to >> handle the replication: >> >> - `_replicate` : which isn't persistent and where you can follow the >> task in active tasks >> - `_replicator`: wich is a plain db where any replication task is >> persistent. In that case even if a replication task is finished, a >> document stay in the replicator db and you will have to delete it and >> compact the db from time to time. >> >> Both are their use cases, and while i think it's good to keep the >> different approaches (persisten against fire and forget), I think the >> API should be more consistent by offering only 1 end point for the >> replication. We could then having different parameters depending on >> the replication type we want (persistent or fire and forget). Also >> both should appear in the active tasks (maybe this point have been >> solved since). >> >> So I propose to keep only one entry point : _replicate and pass the >> parameter we want to it. What do you think ? >> >> - benoit
