couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jan Lehnardt <>
Subject Re: Fail on a simple case on replication
Date Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:59:05 GMT

On 24 Feb 2009, at 11:44, Antony Blakey wrote:

> On 24/02/2009, at 9:02 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>> Hi Antony,
>> On 24 Feb 2009, at 00:34, Antony Blakey wrote:
>>> <flamesuit on>
>>> OTOH, one should use the correct term and not redefine existing  
>>> terms to suit one's own purpose. In a tangentially related way,  
>>> the use of the term RESTful wrt CouchDB is a marketing abomination.
>>> </flamesuit off>
>> I've heard that before. CouchDB's core document API is as
>> RESTful as it gets. But not all of CouchDB's API is RESTful
>> and it wouldn't even make sense. I don't see any abomination
>> going on here. Thanks.
> Couch's core document API is not RESTful. It doesn't use a specific  
> media type to define the interpretation of the content,

CouchDB documents are limited to JSON (application/json) as the
content, that doesn't make the API less RESTful. If that's not the
right answer, I don't understand what you mean.

> and it uses externally defined URL structures to effect operations.

Can you elaborate on that?

> That's not RESTful, and I don't think CouchDB should use the term.

Why then have folks like Sam Ruby* or Tim Bray not objected yet?
Not trying to pick a fight here, I'm just wondering if you are  
"the spec" a little too strict?

*Sam having co-written "RESTful Web Services" for O'Reilly and being
chiefly responsible for CouchDB's incubation at the ASF.

> My argument in this context is pointless. I know it's not going to  
> change.

How about not trying to subtly create "them-and-us" situation? It seems
strange given that you clarified a statement about "the PMC" earlier in
this thread to avoid misinterpretation (thanks). Also, you never brought
this up, so how do you know it is not going to change?


View raw message