2009/2/24 Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> > > On 24 Feb 2009, at 13:52, Patrick Antivackis wrote: > >> It's like all politically correct terminology where you use a stupid >>>> expression in order to be as neutral as possible. >>>> >>>> >>> You have a point here, it is about avoiding conflict. But I don't think >>> we're looking for a neutral term here, but one with a better name. >>> I'd go with _access_token if it weren't too long. _rev is nice and short >>> and _token might as well be _wibble. API design is hard. >>> >>> >> May be it's about conflict, but as it's also a previous release, it's by >> definition a revision. The fact that the revision is no more there is not >> changing the fact that it's a revision. >> > > Haha, language ambiguity for the win :) I meant conflict between > users applying prior understanding of the term "revision" to CouchDB > revisions causing a conflict. I did not mean using _rev as a token to > manage write conflicts for a document. I need to be more careful with > these words :) >
Don't worry i'm neither english speaking native too. > > > > That's why if the name is changed, the functionality to access a previous >> revision should be removed. >> > > I could see that being a valid conclusion and I think that would be > covered with disabling the feature by default and make it an opt-in > like Damien suggested. We also could just nuke it completely and > wait for complaints before reconsidering making it an opt-in. > > Great so my vote becomes : -0 > > > Cheers > Jan > -- > > > -- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> IMO if you change this >>> >>>> attribute name it's even better to remove all possibilities to a access >>>> a >>>> previous rev if still there, and change it's value by a timestamp >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> 2009/2/24 Antony Blakey <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 24/02/2009, at 12:51 PM, Antony Blakey wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The project founder and the PMC, are all committed to that replication >>>>> >>>>> model, which is derived from Notes. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> BTW I'm the only one in the community that has expressed any strong >>>>> desire >>>>> to change this - I'm not implying any community division, just pointing >>>>> out >>>>> that it's both an historical artifact, and accepted by the major >>>>> contributors and committers. >>>>> >>>>> Antony Blakey >>>>> -------------------------- >>>>> CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd >>>>> Ph: 0438 840 787 >>>>> >>>>> Plurality is not to be assumed without necessity >>>>> -- William of Ockham (ca. 1285-1349) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >
