> On 23. Oct 2019, at 13:56, Arturo GARCIA-VARGAS <art...@ficuslabs.com> wrote: > > Maybe my point is not coming across correctly. > > By reading the docs, a consumer would match *explicitly* to a 202 response, > to acknowledge success. > > We better be consistent and either hard-break this behaviour, or behave as > before, but not silently switch the behaviour, even more if the operation > behind is a no-op.
I think I do understand your point, however, the nature of this API allows us to argue for the best of both worlds: batch=ok today says that the client is fine with letting CouchDB decide when to fully commit data. Depending on the circumstances, that decision could be “immediately”, or it could be “some time later”. The proposal here now suggests that we switch this to be always “immediately”, but regardless of batch=ok being present or not, the client doesn’t really care about that. So I don’t think there is a good reason for suggesting a hard break. Best Jan — > > Well, my opinion. > > On 23/10/2019 12:50, Jan Lehnardt wrote: >>> On 23. Oct 2019, at 13:32, Arturo GARCIA-VARGAS <art...@ficuslabs.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Well, a consumer would be explicitly waiting the the accept response code >>> like responseCode === '202' as a sign of "success". We have silently >>> broken the consumer. >>> >>> Granted a consumer should cater for a '201' response, but the docs >>> explicitly say you do not get a 201 when using batch=ok. >> A consumer that can’t deal with different HTTP response codes already isn’t >> doing HTTP correctly. They could already equally receive a 400, 401, 500 or >> any other variety or responses, so I think we’re fine here. >>> >>> On 23/10/2019 12:29, Jan Lehnardt wrote: >>>>> On 23. Oct 2019, at 13:25, Arturo GARCIA-VARGAS <art...@ficuslabs.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> My opinion.... >>>>> >>>>> On 23/10/2019 12:15, Jan Lehnardt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 23. Oct 2019, at 12:40, Robert Samuel Newson <rnew...@apache.org> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just confirming my position on this. We should treat a request with >>>>>>> batch=ok as if the setting was not there. That is, make the same >>>>>>> durable commit as normal. We should therefore send a 201 Created >>>>>>> response code. We should continue to validate the batch setting (it can >>>>>>> be absent or it can be "ok" but every other value is a 400 Bad Request). >>>>>> >>>>> -1 from me, we should: >>>>> 1. Drop it and be consistent with the API. Maybe warning of deprecation >>>>> in couchdb-3? >>>>> 2. Enable same behaviour as before (accepted) with a no-op and config >>>>> file parameter. >>>>> >>>>> But not modify the behaviour of the API >>>> Can you explain why? >>>> The proposed behaviour is no worse than what the option enables, and it >>>> ensures that existing software continues to work without (much) change. >>>> API purity for the sake of it is not really a goal here. >>>> Best >>>> Jan -- Professional Support for Apache CouchDB: https://neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
