That's pretty funny there was a conflict editing this document :). Anyway, I just went to the page and I couldn't find the problem - the page looks clean to me. Can you point me to how to see the issue if you are still seeing it?
I don't have an answer to your other question, what happens when you use _bulk_docs on a single document. I'll leave that to others more knowledgable than I. David On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Brian Candler <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 07:37:01AM -0700, David Van Couvering wrote: > > OK, I updated the page. Can someone please make sure my example response > is > > correct? I gleaned it best as I could from the existing docs. In > > particular, is the format of the request for all-or-nothing correct, and > is > > the conflict response correct? > > http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/HTTP_Document_API > > Meta edit conflict warning: the wiki page itself shows a wiki edit conflict > at the moment :-) > > Aside: if I read this correctly, it seems you can now get completely > different semantics for updating a single document, if instead of using > PUT, > you POST it to _bulk_docs?all_or_nothing=true. In the latter case, if > someone else has change the doc in the mean time, you'll get both versions > saved. > > In some ways you can now argue that PUT has the unusual semantics of > rejecting a document update if the _rev is wrong. PUT gives a sort of > single > node "transaction" which ensures your document remains conflict-free, but > only so long as you don't include replication into the mix. Wasn't this > also > the case for the old _bulk_docs transactions? > > Regards, > > Brian. > -- David W. Van Couvering I am looking for a senior position working on server-side Java systems. Feel free to contact me if you know of any opportunities. http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidvc http://davidvancouvering.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/dcouvering
