Hi, Absolutely agree. While strictly orthogonal, document level access has been a wishlist item for a lot of users for a very long time. The main problem is how it interacts with (i.e, breaks) replication.
That said, Jan is working on per-document level access now (pre-FoundationDB) based on a design that the CouchDB devs worked up in our summit a few years ago. I also think the FoundationDB implementation of it will be easier. It is obviously important that if we add the _access feature in the next major release that we have a path to preserve it through this change. More details as they emerge on that. B. > On 24 Jan 2019, at 01:36, 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 >>
