Ha, this thread seems to have split on both user and dev. On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:00 AM, Jason Huggins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:42 PM, Chris Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I think I've had a change of heart. Damien argues that people would >> use validation-writes to generate timestamps. But the timestamps can >> be wrong/faked (on remote nodes) and there's no way to validate (on >> replication) that they are correct. So putting stamp-capability into >> the validation functions would setup false expectations. Apparently it >> caused all sorts of trouble in Notes. > > Would this validate, then, my idea for a 2nd "meta-data db" that only > the server had POST/PUT/DELETE rights to, but users could GET from? >
Its ok to have timestamps, it would just set the wrong expectation for CouchDB to set them inside the validation function. Because there is no way to validate that a timestamp is correct, especially when replicating from a remote source, setting them inside the database logic itself is wrong. However, using something like _external (or to otherwise reprocess with a batch) to set them or other server variables would be fine. It should just be clear that timestamps are the application's business, not the database's. -- Chris Anderson http://jchris.mfdz.com
