On Mar 8, 2009, at 12:32 AM, Antony Blakey wrote:
On 08/03/2009, at 3:33 PM, Damien Katz wrote:
Replication and compaction are idempotent.
Yes, although my experience has been that starting concurrent
replications with the same parameters is a nightmare.
It shouldn't cause any problems, just extra work for the replicator.
If something else is happening, help us out and create a bug report.
I guess Adam is going to have that fixed.
One further area where this might be a problem is with your new bulk
operation semantics i.e. a repeated POST will generate spurious self-
conflicts, unlike single-doc updates - is that correct?
There is no difference between bulk update and single doc updates. It
all calls the same code in the database layer.
Given the problem with POST is generic, and can be most effectively
(only?) be solved with server cooperation, this still seems to me
like a good idea. Furthermore, this would simplify the programing
model for the user because they could assume that POSTs are never
repeated rather than having to deal with the possibility. IMO
servers should alway reify the concept of once-only operations given
you can't rely on the network or the browser. Anyway, it seems I'm
an outlier on this, and it's not like I have the time to do it.
Non-sequitur, you working on getting that file name patch finished?
It would be nice to have that for 0.9.0
Not at the moment - I'm holding off until I see what I'm going to
have to do to restore fail-on-conflict bulk operations for my
private/deployed version - I'm not trying to convince anyone else.
I'm accumulating my spare time for that in preference to filenames,
because fail-on-conflict is in my face right now. Once I have that
problem solved, if filenames is still outstanding then I'll
resurrect it. Please don't read anything into that.
Ok, good luck with that. Whenever you get some spare time it would be
great if you could help out the project.
-Damien
