Chris Anderson wrote: >> I'd be interested in knowing what happened to the community discussion >> around the removal of the bulk_docs 'feature'? I've tried to raise this a >> couple of times but had little reaction. Am I right in understanding this >> lack of reaction as meaning there is going to be no discussion? > > > We've been concentrating on bulk docs documentation. In my experience, > most people who understand that the unit of consistency is the > document start to see ways of solving problems that work in a > key/value world. Some use-cases don't fit, but for the 80% case we're > better off with the simpler consistency model. >
I think the real issue is one of misunderstanding.. I personally just want a way to rollback changes in order to deal with user interface issues. The document I posted discusses the issue and highlights the fact that the problem is not about consistency, it's about providing a way to rollback changes if part of them fails so that a user can apply a change by clicking submit and get a success/fail response. ... snip ... > > I think the general understanding is that CouchDB is built with a > certain minimalist simplicity in mind. We appreciate that some of our > users have demands that exceed our out-of-the-box functionality. I > think once we have a solid understanding of how to use CouchDB in a > distributed manner, we'll be on steady footing for more ambitious > consistency guarantees. > Just to reiterate.. it's not about consistency, it's about showing users a logical success/fail rather than saying to them.. "well a part of your change worked, part of it didn't - what would you like to do now?". The document I posted (I'll write a blog post about it if it helps) details the issue. Tim
