On Jun 22, 2011, at 6:31 PM, Jason Smith wrote: > _changes is a false prophet. > The best bang-for-buck with the _changes feed is cache invalidation: A > change is a *hint* that you might want to check something out, but it > is (IMHO) not generally the primary trigger to execute some code.
Could you explain that in more detail? In particular, what is it that makes _changes unreliable? Could something be changed [sic] to make it more reliable/useful? > In your case: Require all new docs to have a field "is_new: true". > That is very easy to confirm in the validator: I’m writing a generic framework, not a specific app. I can’t make any assumptions about the document schema, that’s up to the application. This specific task is just to map the _changes feed to Cocoa NSNotifications so the client app can act on them. —Jens
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
