Return-Path: 
 <dev-return-2862-apmail-couchdb-dev-archive=couchdb.apache.org@couchdb.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 68123 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2009 10:45:14 -0000
Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2)
  by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 24 Feb 2009 10:45:14 -0000
Received: (qmail 80592 invoked by uid 500); 24 Feb 2009 10:45:14 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@couchdb.apache.org
Received: (qmail 80551 invoked by uid 500); 24 Feb 2009 10:45:13 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:dev-help@couchdb.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@couchdb.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@couchdb.apache.org>
List-Id: <dev.couchdb.apache.org>
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@couchdb.apache.org
Received: (qmail 80540 invoked by uid 99); 24 Feb 2009 10:45:13 -0000
Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 02:45:13 -0800
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0
	tests=FS_REPLICA,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of antony.blakey@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.200.168 as permitted sender)
Received: from [209.85.200.168] (HELO wf-out-1314.google.com) (209.85.200.168)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:45:05 +0000
Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 28so2686732wff.29
        for <dev@couchdb.apache.org>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 02:44:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:from:to
         :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version
         :subject:date:references:x-mailer;
        bh=4DOcpYtGn1QlY3grE8Ov2BzjFkw3Buooq8zy+zRNjnM=;
        b=IwK604p9tfEYY6x+iT6eYkL/L2tXS/j37/qBOw/AHLeIFa9NyU/3dpQXwnkeJ2s3iI
         OZ0/ZMc5O6smtgd6lF6ZXc2x1U/2qZzT4aNRj/iF954lYz4vCDxbnM5SYO5KN+I8KnMy
         rfVYjcW07KDjaCly0CAbJa57VvhV/EfV6epg8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:references
         :x-mailer;
        b=QJzu430HVwsUSe/+VTzz3oz9M0MHlPs3XBrZazq8N0xlC5tk1Nz/nltFKqXr2O++20
         hlS4kEgMbTS0gZLYf0QNxLEHlHnuo88c4FFVjH+sN5oGhR/QmUUYV9TvlwAfvyvbKj45
         JD/dKXnCNTpSWZ57XQUo1JEvydiOl2MR9grcc=
Received: by 10.142.217.17 with SMTP id p17mr2478693wfg.40.1235472285561;
        Tue, 24 Feb 2009 02:44:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?192.168.0.16? (ppp121-45-202-232.lns10.adl2.internode.on.net
 [121.45.202.232])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 28sm14303978wfg.31.2009.02.24.02.44.44
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5);
        Tue, 24 Feb 2009 02:44:45 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <0D88B212-B1DF-41A6-B407-C8809C3E203D@gmail.com>
From: Antony Blakey <antony.blakey@gmail.com>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <60EAEE6E-E496-44C0-9D75-C67D8FB36D6A@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Subject: Re: Fail on a simple case on replication
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:14:40 +1030
References: <C65E3190-6D7D-4E23-A22E-05DC3C432E45@apache.org>
 <22ECC59F-F646-4F07-9332-14371BA930BE@apache.org>
 <FAA2B5B9-6396-4754-8318-08EFDDD0CE4B@dionne-associates.com>
 <7060483c0902230711r3b02f2e5n9ebf5671aaa35c73@mail.gmail.com>
 <6092422F-29C3-4E5D-B26C-9C0E8B2E9FB4@apache.org>
 <64a10fff0902231502n317456f8l80a9d19c36b704aa@mail.gmail.com>
 <3C3204C0-0662-4012-B62B-9FA8643F4BC8@gmail.com>
 <60EAEE6E-E496-44C0-9D75-C67D8FB36D6A@apache.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3)
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org


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, and it uses  
externally defined URL structures to effect operations. That's not  
RESTful, and I don't think CouchDB should use the term.

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

Antony Blakey
--------------------------
CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
Ph: 0438 840 787

The project was so plagued by politics and ego that when the engineers  
requested technical oversight, our manager hired a psychologist instead.
   -- Ron Avitzur