On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:26, Randall Leeds <randall.le...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 09:40, Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Filipe David Manana
>> <fdman...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yup, but I think that's a bug then. I shouldn't have to set any
>>>> userctx imo. If no admin has been set, every user is an admin except
>>>> if we change the default behavior and then it's not consistent.
>>>
>>> This was discussed sometime before the 1.1.0 release in the security list.
>>> And it's a principle of the least privileges by default (roles is an
>>> empty list).
>>>
>>>
>> I've no problem with that, it's even good. But other part of the API
>> aren't consistent then. While _replicator is ok, I can still do this
>> operation on _replicate. I propose to port the same behavior
>> _replicate.OK for that?
>
> I'd definitely prefer they be consistent.
> In fact, I've been arguing quietly for POST to _replicator to be
> exactly the _replicate API and to deprecate the latter.
> Isn't this possible?
>
What I mean to say is that I think it's absolute craziness to have two
replication APIs.
{persist: true} or something would have made more sense to me.
?block=true perhaps if we want the old one-shot, blocking. Persist on
PUT or with {id: <replication_name>}, otherwise make it one-shot.
I hate to be complaining like this after we've already released it
with a different API, but I raised this a few times before 1.1 went
out. I think two APIs for replication is ugly and confusing. A new
CouchDB user has enough to digest without having to remember that
_replicate is different from _replicator. I would have preferred we
papered over the differences as described above and made _replicate
use a database, rather than create a brand new path.
</rant>
