On Dec 23, 2011, at 1:49 AM, Paul Davis wrote: > On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Robert Newson <[email protected]> wrote: >> In my opinion, and I believe the majority opinion of the group, the >> CouchDB API should be the same everywhere. This specifically includes >> not doing things on a single box that will not work in a >> clustered/sharded situation. It's why our transactions are scoped to a >> single document, for example. >> >> I will also note that all_or_nothing does not provide multi-document >> ACID transactions. The batches used in bulk_docs are not recorded, so >> those items will be replicated individually (and in parallel, so not >> even in a predictable order), which would break the C and I >> characteristics on the receiving server. The old semantic would abort >> the whole update if any one of the documents couldn't be updated but >> the new semantic simply introduces a conflict in that case. >> > > Slight nit pick, but new behavior just returns the error that the > update would *cause* the conflict. (Assuming default non-replicator > _bulk_docs calls.) >
Am I missing something? Current bulk_docs implementation will introduce a conflict in case of conflict, not just reject and return the error. >> B. >> >> On 22 December 2011 16:48, Alexander Uvarov <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> And can become much easier with multi-document transactions as an option. >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Pepijn de Vos <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> But not everyone needs a cluster. I like CouchDB because it's easy, not >>>> because "it scales", and in some situations, all_or_nothing is easy. >>>> > > Robert mentions it in passing, but the biggest reason that we dropped > the original _bulk_docs behavior doesn't have anything to do with > clustering. It was because the semantics are violated as soon as you > try and replicate. Since there's no tracking of the group of docs > posted to _bulk_docs then as soon as your mobile client tried to move > data in or out you'd lose all three of ACI in ACID. Ain't every system with multi-master architecture will cause problems as soon as you try to replicate? Should this force people to design for replication even them don't need it? In my first message I mentioned that not every application need to be replicated. There are a thousands of such apps in the world. Even it's possible to design some app for replication, it can be very hard to do and developer and probably future users will spend a lot of time for superfluous.
