Hi Will, your opinion is as valuable as anyone else’s here, and with such a large proposal, we need to hear everyone’s voice.
I’m currently the (unofficial) champion of this proposal and I have some wip code that just last weekend got to a stage that showed that with some more work, this could be done with not a lot of total effort. I personally agree that this is a feature that should be in CouchDB sooner than later, but one concern is that older versions of CouchDB will reject docs with an _access property, so the usefulness is only for folks going forward (or we’ll add a compat mode to older versions, something I’m not seeing really, at least for 1.x). That said, I still want to see this in CouchDB. Since looking at FDB, it is pretty clear that adding the _access proposal to an FDB CouchDB would be an order of magnitude simpler than doing it on the current codebase, bit I think it is worth doing in both places. This is also part of the larger discussion of what happens with the project until something based on FDB is shipped and I’d like to open a new thread for that specifically shortly. Everything is still TBD, but we already know there are a bunch of things that are coming to CouchDB (partitioned databases, etc.) as we know it, and I would like to work towards a “we’ll make the best CouchDB we can”, so it can be a viable option for folks who can’t switch to an FDB-powered CouchDB for whatever reason for a long time to come. Best Jan — > On 24. Jan 2019, at 02:36, William Edney <bed...@technicalpursuit.com> wrote: > > As someone who is a user of CouchDB and who's normally a lurker here (which > maybe means my opinion doesn't mean much), I would humbly submit that a > higher priority (for me at least) is the lack of per-user document access > as detailed here: > > https://github.com/apache/couchdb/issues/1524 > > I'm not sure how far down the road this feature is, but I do get a lot of > pushback from clients in using CouchDB when they believe that permissions > are not going be enforced in the database. Yes, I can eventually sell them > on 'per user db with replication', but that's looked upon as a hack. > > Just my two cents. > > Cheers, > > - Bill > > On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 6:17 PM ermouth <ermo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, Robert >> >>> as something we don’t know how to carry over yet >> >> Is there any workaround for FDB limitations for key size (10kb) and value >> size (100kb)? >> >> ermouth >> -- Professional Support for Apache CouchDB: https://neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
