The problem with update functions that they cannot be applied for bulk updates. API reroute via reverse proxy cannot solve that too. I believe, proposed feature assumed to handle this case. -- ,,,^..^,,,
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Joan Touzet <[email protected]> wrote: > The typical solution to this is to use a reverse proxy or API layer to ensure > that all client updates go through the required document update handler. It's > unclear to me that this functionality native in CouchDB is necessary. > > If you decide to move ahead with implementation , keep in mind that the > 1843-feature-bigcouch branch as that will be landing very soon. Any proposed > patch should be compatible the fabric/chttpd-based approach and support > single- and multi-node (BigCouch cluster) approaches. > > -Joan > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Franck Eyraud" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 8:34:57 AM > Subject: Re: Proposal for new feature: Auto Update Functions > > Le 30/05/2014 13:04, Dirkjan Ochtman a écrit : >> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Suraj Kumar <[email protected]> wrote: >>> What are your thoughts, both from the use-case as well as >>> internals/performance of CouchDB about this? >> How is this different from document update handlers? > Update handlers must be called by the client to be used. Auto update > functions would be called even if the client directly POST/PUT a doc to > the DB (so they would be mandatory). > > At first sight a good idea, it seems to me that auto update functions > would cause problem during replication : the replicated doc might be > different from the original one. > > Franck
