When I chatted with @ept he mentioned that the restriction is artificial and was put there to stop people accidentally misusing the API. Unfortunately it is a limitation for certain use-cases.
My use-case: I'm having an end-to-end encrypted protocol where save is leveraged to create Snapshots of the current document that are stored remotely. Now if a client has a
local version
fetches the latest snapshot to apply it
You can't merge the documents together. I also can imaging architectures that leverage save to place document into different storages and need to merge them.
Of course this already is an advanced use-case and could be worked around directly leveraging applyChanges.
Let me know if you think the restriction is important enough or it's fine to remove.
When I chatted with @ept he mentioned that the restriction is artificial and was put there to stop people accidentally misusing the API. Unfortunately it is a limitation for certain use-cases.
My use-case: I'm having an end-to-end encrypted protocol where
save
is leveraged to create Snapshots of the current document that are stored remotely. Now if a client has aYou can't merge the documents together. I also can imaging architectures that leverage
save
to place document into different storages and need to merge them.Of course this already is an advanced use-case and could be worked around directly leveraging
applyChanges
.Let me know if you think the restriction is important enough or it's fine to remove.
Note:
yarn test
is passing