On 28/01/2009, at 9:33 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 09:30:19PM +1030, Antony Blakey wrote:
On 28/01/2009, at 9:10 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
On 28 Jan 2009, at 11:31, Brian Candler wrote:
BTW, I do think the atomic nature of bulk_docs is useful and should
be kept,
as it's the only way to get "transaction" semantics at the moment.
We won't be able to guarantee transactions in a multi-node setup.
And there's a universe of single-node applications.
I would prefer a predictable interface over single-node special-
casing.
And I would like a transactional guarantee. Why not provide
transactional APIs that throw an exception in a multi-node setup? A
single node is a useful and IMO common use-case. Possible more common
that a multi-node setup.
Why penalize such a setup when both can be accommodated?
Antony Blakey
-------------
CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
Ph: 0438 840 787
A Buddhist walks up to a hot-dog stand and says, "Make me one with
everything". He then pays the vendor and asks for change. The vendor
says, "Change comes from within".
