Mailing-List: contact couchdb-user-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: couchdb-user@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Message-Id: <88245CE8-8351-427F-8FEC-AF605C4D1B93@apache.org>
From: Damien Katz <damien@apache.org>
To: couchdb-user@incubator.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <6C823DC3-CFE4-4589-BD85-6FD15FF47606@salas.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2)
Subject: Re: Very elementary question
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:18:39 -0500
References: <dbbd1cd0811120920v432f8ee2q141f732f68e02bf3@mail.gmail.com>
 <7CFD926E-D3D4-4700-B9A5-8E9A512ABB68@apache.org>
 <6C823DC3-CFE4-4589-BD85-6FD15FF47606@salas.com>

Hi Pito. I've heard your name many times in the past, usually  
mentioned in a positive manner :) I'm not sure we've met, but if so it  
was probably when I was at Iris or Kubi. I've been working on CouchDB  
since early 2005, but I've been in NC that whole time.

Welcome to the CouchDB community!

-Damien

On Nov 13, 2008, at 1:43 PM, R. Pito Salas wrote:

> Damien
>
> I think you and I met several years ago at a Starbucks or something,  
> didn't we? You were working on CouchDB even then? You used to work  
> at Iris? Or am I mixing you up with someone else?
>
> Anyway, pretty cool the traction you've gotten with it.  
> Congratulations!
>
> -- Pito
>
> On Nov 12, 2008, at 6:12 PM, Damien Katz wrote:
>
>> I don't know about Peepcode, but I'm guessing the library is  
>> expecting a object, and looks to be iterating over your string  
>> somehow thinking it's an object with the offsets as keys and the  
>> individual characters as values..
>>
>> Try giving it something like {body:"abc"}.
>>
>> On Nov 12, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Pito Salas wrote:
>>
>>> I am experimenting with CouchDb, via PeepCode.
>>>
>>> I am finding that in the _utils browser interface, the values are
>>> rendered in a way that is different from the PeepCode and before
>>> spending too much time on a bad install I thought I'd ask if anyone
>>> has an explanation, and whether I should just ignore the  
>>> difference or
>>> there's actually something broken here. Take a look at the  
>>> screenshots
>>> and you see that:
>>>
>>> values like "abc" are not accepted for a field (JSON error)
>>> values like ["abc"] are accepted, but then are spewed back as 0
>>> {"0":"a","1":"b","2":"c","3":"d"}
>>>
>>> Comments?
>>
>