If validations could write, they could serve as a complete data access
layer. They could handle meta data generation, merging, encapsulation
(aka implementation hiding/abstraction/conversion) and essentially solve
the partial update problem.
If merges could be handled by script functions, two-way replication
could be completely autonomous. Plus, sloppy developers would be more
likely to actually handle revision conflicts instead of just ignoring them.
From what I understand of the current architecture, it's most of the
way there. There's already a script engine, a way to store scripts
associated with an event, a protocol for invoking them and for passing
data back and forth. Why not just provide hooks to every part of CouchDB?
Chris Anderson wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:07 PM, Jason Huggins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Jedediah Smith
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The new validation functions might be able to do this for you if they are
allowed to modify the document. Whether or not they are was asked on the dev
list but not answered. I hope they are as that would be endlessly useful. It
would be *really* neat if a function could also handle merging for revision
conflicts.
I'm not sure about changing documents -- I think it would be simple to
add if the demand is strong.
Are validation functions in trunk or a released version?... or still
on the drawing board? (I suppose I should switch to the dev list to
ask that question to a more targeted audience.) :-)
I wrote up my dive through the security_validation tests here:
http://jchris.mfdz.com/code/2008/12/couchdb_edge__security_and_vali
Validations are in trunk, but you'd have to do some work to use them
in an application.
