On 14/11/2008, at 12:32 PM, Antony Blakey wrote:
{
"docs": [
/* Just for backwards compatibility ... but does that matter for
an alpha product ? */
... as now ...
],
"PUT": [
/* As now with docs, but not allowing "delete":true ? */
{ "_id": ..., "_rev": ..., ... }
...
],
"PATCH": [
{ "_id": ..., "_rev": ..., deltas: [ { "replace":... }, ... ] }
...
],
"DELETE": [
{ "_id": ..., "_rev": ... },
...
]
}
This has the benefit of (roughly) representing the HTTP methods that
it aggregates.
On second thought, given that it represents an aggregation of commands
that have an explicit ordering, maybe it shouldn't be grouped by
method but instead use the method as a key. Like this:
[
{ "delete":{ "_id": ..., "_rev": ... } },
{ "put": { "_id": ..., "_rev": ..., ... },
{ "patch": { "_id": ..., "_rev": ... } "with": [ { "replace": ...
"with": ... }, ... ] },
...
]
The benefit of this that generating this is easier to reason about and
generate if your client code is doing deletes and inserts of documents
with the same id. It accurately represents adding a transactional
boundary without requiring a change in semantics.
Antony Blakey
-------------
CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
Ph: 0438 840 787
When I hear somebody sigh, 'Life is hard,' I am always tempted to ask,
'Compared to what?'
-- Sydney Harris
