Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
What name would you like for this new operation?
"Update" is already taken, so I was thinking to "merge", but I'm not that sure
... do you like "merge"? any other ideas?
Original comment by sergio.b...@gmail.com
on 19 Jan 2011 at 7:15
What do you think about of "fastUpdate"? It's cool, isn't it?
Original comment by you...@gmail.com
on 19 Jan 2011 at 10:33
Well, the problem is we already use the word "update" for server-side update
functions: using it again may lead people to think this new feature works the
same as the other one, which is not the case.
Fast updates work by using a special-purpose update syntax as reported on issue
151, so there are no functions involved.
So, in the end, I think "fastUpdate" doesn't fit well ... any other ideas?
Original comment by sergio.b...@gmail.com
on 19 Jan 2011 at 1:13
No Sergio, so we will use "merge"?
Original comment by you...@gmail.com
on 20 Jan 2011 at 4:28
You mean you have no better ideas? :)
Well, it seems we'll stick with "merge".
Original comment by sergio.b...@gmail.com
on 20 Jan 2011 at 5:17
Original comment by sergio.b...@gmail.com
on 20 Jan 2011 at 5:18
Feels to me that this more 'update' than the 'update functions', so maybe the
latter should be given a new name?
Original comment by johansso...@gmail.com
on 20 Jan 2011 at 5:26
Don't think so: atomic functions actually perform updates.
Moreover, I have some concerns about changing well-established terminologies,
in particular because we mention "atomic update functions" several times in the
wiki, issue tracker, mailing list and so on ... aren't you?
Original comment by sergio.b...@gmail.com
on 20 Jan 2011 at 5:47
And anyways, "merge" isn't imho that bad after all: that use of + and - and *
signs makes me think of merges actually.
Original comment by sergio.b...@gmail.com
on 20 Jan 2011 at 5:49
Implemented.
The new merge operation is available at the following url: /bucket/key/merge,
requiring a json document which describes the merge operation as explained in
issue 151.
Original comment by sergio.b...@gmail.com
on 21 Jan 2011 at 6:20
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
sergio.b...@gmail.com
on 19 Jan 2011 at 7:10