On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 01:12, Chris Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Adam Kocoloski <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > If calling out to Spidermonkey on reads isn't as awful of a performance > hit > > as I expect it to be then supporting Vlad's validate_doc_read proposal > would > > also make sense from symmetry arguments. > > > > I agree, I think validate-on-read is worth benchmarking. > I don't actually see a problematic asymmetry. I think symmetry demands both read and write acl or neither but it's fine to have only update validation. For me 'validation' immediately brings to mind update operations for some reason. Of course, go ahead and benchmark it, but I think it's non-essential. My two cents.
