Hi, i got a "master" couchdb and a couchdb for each user. A filtered replication is set up for each user, so documents from master where the owner field === username get replicated to the corresponding users database. If a document changes the owner i have to remove the document from the former owners db.
This could be done in application logic, but might get complicated. I came up with a different solution: When the owner is changed, i don't simply post the new revision to the master but i use bulk_docs (with all_or_nothing:true) to create 2 documents. One representing the new version of the document. One just containing the former owner and _deleted = true. Both contain the _rev of the current document of the master db. If i get the document from the master db, i "see" the new version, because the other branch is deleted and the replication to the new owners db picks up the new version since this is the one where the owner field matches. The replication to the former owners db picks up the deleted version of the document, because this is the one where the owner matches. Is this a valid use of couchdb and reliable behavior or am a using some kind of "flaw" and should feel bad? thanks, Stefan
