On Jul 8, 2010, at 4:17 AM, Shawn Wilsher wrote: > On 7/6/2010 6:31 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote: >> To begin with, 10052 shuts down the "users" of the database completely when >> only one is changing its structure, i.e., adding or removing an object >> store. How can we make it less draconian? Secondly, I don't see how that >> approach can produce atomic changes to the database. Thirdly, we shouldn't >> need to change version in order to perform database changes. Finally, I am >> not sure why you consider the syntax proposal simpler. Note that I am not >> averse to the version change event notification. > In what use case would you want to change the database structure without > modifying the version? That almost seems like a footgun for consumers. >
Can you justify your conclusion?