couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benoit Chesneau <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Capability identification
Date Fri, 07 Jun 2013 10:07:20 GMT
Well capababilities idea come from the SMTP world at first but same
idea. That's indeed a good idea. Identification per see would't be
efficient on a client level. We don't really want to reproduce the
nightmare we have with the browsers with different U/A. Testing
capabilities is definitely a good way to test what an endpoint
support. For example some endpoint or node could only support the
replication. one ather could support the couchdb/1.3 api. other could
offers some extensions or plugin like you say.

Though In these days I would modernize it a little as a way to
describe the api endpoints with the resource supported.

We could base it on the host metadata rfc [1] or using some new stuffs
like the JSON api [2] .


Maybe there are other specs around. Anyway it also means we need to
describe our API accurately and what we support so expectation are
guaranteed. So if i noow that this server is couchdb 1.1 compatible i
don't have to test the vendor, like I now have to do in couchdbkit or
couchbeam to handle cloudant and couchdb nodes for small changes.
Instead I could just lod the capabilities and make sure to make them
available at the client level. We could also make a compatibility grid
later for the users based on capabilities.

- benoit

On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:40 AM, Joan Touzet <> wrote:
> Today, if I GET http://localhost:5984/ , I get:
>   {"couchdb":"Welcome","uuid":"b1b1dbe964914a9cb1467bfd4f297fed","version":"1.3.0","vendor":{"version":"1.3.0","name":"The
> Apache Software Foundation"}}
> If I GET from , I get:
>   {"couchdb":"Welcome","uuid":"bac168113808f7ed357fb53f3a7a68bc","version":"1.3.0","vendor":{"version":"1.3.0r1","name":"Iris
> Couch"}}
> And if I GET , I get:
>   {"couchdb":"Welcome","version":"1.0.2","cloudant_build":"1202"}
> I believe I get further still different responses from Pouch and Touch
> and other CouchDB-alikes, provided they even have an equivalent of
> GET /.
> Long ago, in a galaxy far far away, the developers of Internet Relay
> Chat daemons faced a similar problem. While they were bound by a single
> RFC (and later, its twin), each developer wanted to extend the program
> in interesting and unique ways. Some of those features became
> commonplace and built a shared understanding, others were unique
> capabilities of specific implementations, and yet others indicated
> specific incompatibilities introduced for nefarious purposes.
> While the sordid history of the IRC protocol is a topic for drinks after
> a meetup some night, one lesson learned has proved exceedingly useful:
> the CAPAB string. Documented in the TS6 specification[1] but universally
> adopted, server-to-server CAPAB/PROTOCTL provided a negotiation of both
> implemented functionality as well as services offered. A further
> extension was created for client-to-server capabiliity negotiation
> as a draft RFC[2][4] and is also widely implemented.
> To make this more tangible, reference this list[3] of IRC server
> CAPABilities. If you've ever used IRC, and especially different IRC
> networks, you should be able to intuitively understand how this up-front
> negotiation helps simplify server-to-server connection negotiation.
> ---
> I think CouchDB should extend its identification in the root-level
> document with a capability advertisement. This would help prevent the
> current anti-patterns in production use of CouchDB:
>   1. Client library negotiation based exclusively on "compatibility
>      with >= version of Apache CouchDB," which is nebulously documented
>      at best.
>   2. Provide a clear means by which CouchDB plugins and CouchDB-alike
>      services can advertise their availability.
>   3. Provide a way for alternate implementations of similar
>      functionality to indicate interoperability.
>   4. Possibly simplify the replicator (though this is a special case of
>      1 and 2 above).
> I've gotten no further than this in my thinking yet; I didn't want to
> start implementation before folks had a chance to say whether they
> thought it'd be a good idea or not.
> [1]:
> [2]:
> [3]:
> [4]:
> --
> Joan Touzet | | wohali everywhere else

View raw message