couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon Metson <simonmet...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: Initial couchdb accounts feedback
Date Mon, 11 Jan 2010 09:21:44 GMT
Hi,
	I can imagine a database existing already with the name usr (or user,  
or auth), the name _usr (or _user or _auth) would be rarer (imho)  
exactly because the _ is already reserved in CouchDB. The _ databases  
will also sort and be next to one another, and all be special, whereas  
there may be other three letter databases beginning with u in the  
Couch, so I think the visual variation is better.
Cheers
Simon

On 10 Jan 2010, at 23:42, cinnebar wrote:

> I think its a worthwhile discussion to have but not sure if its  
> entirely
> relevent to this thread?
>
> breifly: limiting a set of keys to three letters, where other keys  
> are not
> makes keys from the set instantly uniquely disinguishable.  common  
> practice
> would be user or users so in the context usr is a unique identifier.
> whereas in "_users" the visual variation is a _ which is harder to
> distinguish in a list of names from user or users or other names using
> regular english terms for things you would want to keep in a db,  
> _imhos.
>
> (also i would hope that the question is more an effort to establish  
> best
> practice rather than lazy antagonism)
>
> cheers
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 6:38 AM, Noah Slater <nslater@tumbolia.org>  
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 10 Jan 2010, at 19:19, cinnebar wrote:
>>
>>> i was talking about a set that is uniquely distinguishable, even  
>>> from the
>>> set using underscores
>>
>> What makes "usr" uniquely distinguishable in a way that "_users" is  
>> not?
>>
>> To quote Sam Ruby, and applying it to URLs (which are opaque  
>> buckets of 1s
>> and 0s), it's just data!


Mime
View raw message