oldDoc is null in this case. That matches the case that the doc is brand new and is surely deliberate? I asked him to post it this here because I do understand the benefits of it being otherwise and wanted to see this conversation.
My position is that deleting a document should free that id for any future use, which is exactly what Jim does not want. I'd like to hear from folks that might have a memory of when this particular semantic was decided. I think it could arguably have gone the other way. On 17 May 2013 19:52, Randall Leeds <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Jim Klo <[email protected]> wrote: >> So Bob suggested that I raise this topic over here… Attaching the relevant >> thread from user@ here. >> >> I suppose this is a feature request to be able to optionally enable the >> passing of the document "stub" as the oldDoc, if exists to the VDU, if the >> design doc contains a flag to enable this behavior. >> >> I have a couple use cases: >> 1. DCMA takedown; I want to add additional data to the deleted marker, that >> would permit the VDU to inspect the deleted "stub" doc for the additional >> data and determine whether to permit the reinstatement of the doc. >> 2. Want to prevent reuse of an _id. I want docs to be immutable except for >> a one time delete. >> >> In response to Bob's last response on user@ is how is this behavior any >> different than an document update? My workaround is that I don't actually >> delete documents, but just update them into a "tombstone" document that >> removes the contents and then add the extra details I need for the VDU to >> work. The major difference is that I must encode logic into my views to >> avoid the tombstone document which adds some unneeded complexity to the >> potentially every view. My case is not so bad in that all my documents are >> 'typed' so my tombstone documents change the type such that they are >> excluded from views - however I had to carefully check to ensure that was >> the case. >> >> Thoughts, explanation why this is bad, etc? > > Are we not passing the old doc (when deleted) to the VDU currently? It > seems like perhaps we should. > > The only other piece that would need to change if you use regular > DELETEs with a tombstone body would be to ensure the tombstone doesn't > disappear. I'm not sure currently whether or not the tombstones > survive compaction, for instance. I suspect they do.
