Mailing-List: contact user-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.211.186 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
         :content-type;
        b=pcC+Y59p9Go+rPM7ujpvNkQPRpZ1ev3E532wUTtGb9UwVjPvWQ+rE5CDJQMmka4q6Z
         8gFi4sxMyOCfSww5A3ZYuIM+4Ada1ab24D6uK3eeSwmxZHiHJYWLAV5+V0vJQZ3kG8Ss
         Np3xP6MFKh0WRZWd33p+UbtdE5lTqGdElUW7A=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3f1568830910291619g3c1afdadn1aaeb766a43745f3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3f1568830910291547ldc358e3s30bf07c6c9ad954c@mail.gmail.com>
	<e2111bbb0910291559m5ed5fa59hb96ae251258ee314@mail.gmail.com>
	<3f1568830910291619g3c1afdadn1aaeb766a43745f3@mail.gmail.com>
From: Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:01:41 -0400
Message-ID: <e2111bbb0910292001u6aeff72el972090d883fa811f@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Proposal regarding reserved names
To: user@couchdb.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Julian Goacher
<julian.goacher@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> I think this is a slightly different use case though. The framework sits as
> a layer between the user and the db; I don't want the user to wrap their
> data to use the framework. Rather, I want to annotate a user generated
> document with additional data - which is essentially what the existing
> underscored names currently do.

If you have a layer between the user and the db then I don't see what
would be cleaner than using a nested object. Otherwise your user has
to face the fact that none of their top level members are able to be
underscore prefixed. There might be implications for M/R I guess, but
that'd depend on how much framework there is.

Bottom line, I'm not sure how much its gonna be worth it to special
case _meta as a not reserved member. I'd need to be a bit more
convinced before I'd say that punching a hole in the underscore prefix
rule would be ok. As it is, you could just as well do $meta or
something else without a difference.

Paul Davis