On 25/02/2009, at 2:55 PM, Chris Anderson wrote:
Reiterating: I think the clean solution is to remove the API for loading docs at a particular rev. Instead we allow only the loading of all conflicted revs (or of course the HEAD rev). I'll wait for people to say why this is a bad idea before I say why it's a good idea.
Also, without access to the common ancestor of a document and it's conflicts, you can't use three way merging as a conflict resolution strategy, because you only have instantaneous state. Or am I wrong to think this is possible in any case? Can you chase down a conflict's ancestry to find the divergent point?
However, both this point and my previous point are moot, because the replication model means that access to arbitrary previous revisions is only likely on the node where the revisions were written. Access to only the head and it's conflicts (and the conflict chain I presume) is all that is consistent with replication.
I'm wondering therefore if lazy updating externals that respect the request's update_seq are not in fact possible given replication?
Antony Blakey ------------- CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd Ph: 0438 840 787 Borrow money from pessimists - they don't expect it back. -- Steven Wright
