On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Alexander Shorin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> mmm..this would require to be database admin and might not been >> optimal. May be have just update function name there? Also, I believe, >> such call will ignore any custom response from update function, right? >> -- >> ,,,^..^,,, >> >> > The purpose would be to only handle the updates of a docs coming in a blik > update. The return message won't change, > > For the admin rights, I don't see, all the rights working for a bulk update > will be applied there.
Due to custom source code execution like in case of temp views. While it's might be ok for sandboxed languages, I don't like to have such feature for Python query server or even Erlang one for oblivious reasons(: > Note that such function could introduce the possibility to have > transactions. Imagine you could also access to the database api in such > function... Hm..to have real transaction feature you need to operate with all posted documents e.g. this would be not update function, but something different with signature (docs, req) // note docs instead of doc For access to the database api inside design functions I'm not sure...I'm playing within for lua query server - it's cool and very-very powerful feature, but it works just because I could pass native Erlang couch_* functions into it. For other languages I fear we have to setup some generic RPC service on CouchDB side for that (and make a lot of work for public API) and not sure that this is wise idea. -- ,,,^..^,,,
