Also see: https://github.com/pouchdb-community/pouchdb-authentication/blob/master/docs/recipes.md
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 11:26, Marcus <[email protected]> wrote: > One database per user would not actually offer the access control > granularity required for sharing read-access to individual documents. I > originally misunderstood that. > > Per database access control would only work for an access model like > Instagram's, by restricting access to all documents, or to none. What > Instagram terms a "private account". > It does not allow for access control like e.g. Dropbox or iCloud, by > restricting read access to individual documents. > > It sounds like middleware is the only solution to providing per-document > access control in CouchDB 2.x. If anyone could share their working > solutions it would be a great help. > > Marcus > > > > > On 9. Feb 2020, at 09:04, Willem van der Westhuizen <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > I would like to follow up on the Cloudant suggestion of a per-user > database. That seems in contrast to other couchdb resources advocating it > as the design pattern. We have found it preferable to use per user > databases to manage efficient replication to users in pouchdb on the > client, replicating to the server. Could you perhaps refer to the > references on this issue? > > > >> On 2020/02/09 01:11, Marcus wrote: > >> Can anyone help with per-user access to documents? > >> > >> Imagine a to-do list app where lists are private by default, but can be > shared with others. One document per list would make sense, correct? > >> > >> Problem: Couchdb access control is per database, I cannot figure out a > way to restrict read access to lists. > >> > >> Cloudant strongly advise against creating one database per user, unless > it's a very small number. They suggest a limit of 500 databases to not > diminish performance. > >> > >> Does anyone have a suggestion how I could control read access for each > to-do list? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Marcus > >> > >> > >> . > >
