On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 11:39, Jason Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 01:35, Randall Leeds <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Either way we're waiting for a response from couch to call back into >> JS, it's just whether we're calling the original function or the >> continuation. >> I don't have a strong preference either way, but I do slightly favor >> the callback continuation as a mild style preference. >> > > I have to say, callback style is way nicer. I have not thought about how > that would look from non-Javascript query servers though. > > >> In either case, do we have to add some new response format so the >> query server can say "Hey call me again and tell me what to do with >> this result?" >> In other words, both of our suggestions can work on top of the same >> change that needs to happen to the view server line protocol, so you >> can code up either one and we can settle on what it should look like >> to people writing update handlers later, no? >> > > I suppose so. But I am unclear because earlier in the thread I posted > working code that allows me to handle save conflicts (or validation > failures) from within javascript, with no change to the line protocol. (That > is about all it has going for it in fact!)
Oh, wow. That's a bonus. I'll look at it and see. I don't know the line protocol well.
