incubator-couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Antony Blakey <>
Subject Re: Changing rev to _rev in view results (Was: Re: newbie question #1)
Date Tue, 30 Dec 2008 01:46:19 GMT

On 30/12/2008, at 11:55 AM, Damien Katz wrote:

> Your argument about consistency and rigor being compromised is  
> unqualified. I see nothing more or less consistent or rigorous about  
> the current implementation versus other proposals, the rule as is is  
> easy to follow and use, and as far as I know has no inconsistencies.

Having no rule is simpler than the current rule. The API is  
unnecessarily complicated by that rule. The fact that '_id' and '_rev'  
would have underscores everywhere is not a rule, it is a matter of  
identity, which is a fundamental concept i.e. a thing has a single name.

It is inconsistent because sometimes a document id is named 'id' and  
sometimes '_id'. You claim that the name is consistent modulo the  
application of the rule. I assert that is prima facie inconsistent.

As far as rigor being compromised, I assert that the current scheme  
violates Ockham's Razor.

Furthermore, remember that this was brought up by Geir in the context  
of a first approach to the API. I understand the rule and yet still  
find it annoying to have to code against both 'id' and '_id' depending  
on context. It has more cognitive load that having a single name for  
that type of thing.

You claim that:

> The current rule maybe not the most intuitive to a newbie, but it is  
> far more consistent and easier to work with then when using the  
> deeper APIs.

I think that fact that it is not the most intuitive to a newbie is a  
telling point, given that I don't think the second phrase is true. How  
are the deeper APIs made simpler and more consistent by having two  
names for the id depending on context?

Antony Blakey
CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
Ph: 0438 840 787

There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to  
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the  
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious  
   -- C. A. R. Hoare

View raw message