incubator-couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Damien Katz <damienk...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: incremental map/reduce scope
Date Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:51:07 GMT
That seems a perfectly fine way to go about things, there is no "right  
way". Also, docs could have multiple "types",

{"types":["contact", "vendor", "enemy"], "name":"Bill Gates", ...}

On Mar 26, 2008, at 12:36 AM, Chris Anderson wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Jan Lehnardt <jan@prima.de> wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 25, 2008, at 23:05 , Sho Fukamachi wrote:
>>> Has the community arrived at a kind of "best practise" for
>>> differentiating between record types? In the wiki using the key
>>> "type" is suggested, I am wondering how official this is. Not that
>>> it needs to be official, of course, but establishing some sort of
>>> convention is probably a good idea to get everyone on the same page.
>
> My practice doesn't lend itself to convention directly, but has worked
> well for me so far. Rather than specifying a document.type, I just use
> Duck typing, like a good Rubyist. :)
>
> For instance in a view I might say
>
> if (doc.authors) {
> ... iterate through the authors and map them ...
> }
>
> This way documents don't have fixed types, they just have certain view
> functions that apply to them. It's too soon to tell if this will
> become a maintenance headache, but I think as long as my writers are
> consistent, I'll do just fine with it.
>
> -- 
> Chris Anderson
> http://jchris.mfdz.com


Mime
View raw message