Hey Joan, thanks for the response! I ended up having a little back-and-forth with Bob Newson over slack and got it figured out.
But yes, it's not quite as clear cut as I hoped it would be. Ben On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Joan Touzet <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ben, did anyone ever get back to you on this? I know that the > core developers have a LOT of reservations about the _replicator database, > primarily the fact that the backing store for a _replicator endpoint > probably shouldn't be a database itself (though it could conceivably > present > a similar API to one). > > Personally I still use the _replicate endpoint most of the time. > > -Joan > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ben Keen" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Friday, June 3, 2016 10:11:30 AM > Subject: _replicate vs. _replicator > > Hey! > > Wonder if I could get some advice here. I’ve been working on refactoring > the replication feature in Fauxton to POST to the /_replicator database > rather than using /_replicate. > > Having all replications (continuous/one-offs) logged in one place (the > _replicator database) leaves a nice paper trail of replication history. > [N.B. I’ve been speaking to Markus Fischboeck, who’s doing work on adding > some advanced replication features - we’re working in parallel]. > > I’ve been able to get replications working, but it requires passing both > basic headers in the POSTed JSON content, and the creds in the actual > endpoint URL, like so: > > http://bob:[email protected]:8000/_replicator > > It’s the latter that particularly worries me. I don’t believe this is > secure over http (correct?), and since Fauxton could be run anywhere, I > wanted to know if I should stop heading down this road and stick with > _replicate. > > Thanks! > > Ben >
