Thanks CGS! I'll think deeper about the two options. Actually, I think there is one radical "solution" to the problem
1. Create a copy of Sarah's database, filtering out all deleted documents 2. Delete Sarah's database 3. Recreate Sarah's database using the copy from 2. I wonder how expensive such an operation would be? What do you think? Maybe it would be a feasible way, as it would be "only" a user database, with maybe a few thousand documents. -- Gregor Martynus On Tuesday, 22. May 2012 at 18:18, CGS wrote: > Hi Gregor, > > I admit I never had that problem, but I wouldn't allow Sarah to delete the > document from Joe. Instead, I would create a blacklist document in Sarah's > database in which she is allowed to add and delete Joe. If Joe is in the > blacklist, then Sarah's would still have Joe's document, but the document > would not be shown to Sarah. Once Sarah is changing her mind, she can > delete Joe from her blacklist and, consequently, she can resume sharing and > viewing Joe's docs. > > Another option would be the reversed replication in which Sarah can add a > certain field (e.g., key: Sarah, value: blacklisted) in Joe's document, so, > the revisions in both databases to be at the same value. > > I don't know if these options have any value for you, but this is what I > could think of to avoid the document conflict you mentioned. I hope it will > give you at least an idea how to go around the problem. > > CGS > > > > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Gregor Martynus <[email protected] > (mailto:[email protected])>wrote: > > > Hey everyone, > > > > Imagine the following setup: 3 databases with 2 cont. replications: > > > > "user/joe" > > || > > || cont. replication (filtered) > > || > > \/ > > "shared/123" > > || > > || cont. replication > > || > > \/ > > "user/sarah" > > > > Joe (user/joe) is sharing a list of documents with an extra database > > (shared/123) and a filtered replication. Sarah > > (user/sarah) subscribed to the Joe's shared documents with another cont. > > replication. > > > > So far, so awesome. > > > > And now the Problem: > > > > 1. Sarah deletes Joe's documents and stops the replication. > > 2. Sarah changes her mind, she wants to have the documets back again > > 3. it doesn't work, because new revisions have been added for each deleted > > document, the shared documents do not get replicated because of the > > conflicts. > > > > And here I am, and don't see a "couch way" to solve this problem. Neither > > do I see a simple workaround. > > > > Is there anything you can think of, to solve or work around this problem? > > Or is this kind of "sharing" between user databases broken by design? > > > > -- > > Gregor > > > > >
