On 28/01/2009, at 9:44 PM, Antony Blakey wrote:
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?
And furthermore, where's the community discussion about this? Where's
the roadmap, the architectural discussion? Or are we all meant to
stand back in awe of one person's god-like vision, unexplained,
undiscussed, ineffable? That doesn't sound like an Apache project.
Antony Blakey
-------------
CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
Ph: 0438 840 787
Every task involves constraint,
Solve the thing without complaint;
There are magic links and chains
Forged to loose our rigid brains.
Structures, structures, though they bind,
Strangely liberate the mind.
-- James Fallen
