On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 3:21 AM, Antony Blakey <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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?
I think this might be the community discussion. -- Chris Anderson http://jchris.mfdz.com
