incubator-couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Anderson <>
Subject Re: Proposal regarding reserved names
Date Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:30:19 GMT
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 8:07 AM, Julian Goacher
<> wrote:
> OK, I know this is a fairly minor issue, and I have workable alternatives so
> I'm not going to push this too hard, but I'm going to try making one last
> pitch for this in the hope of garnering some interest.
> My proposal has to be understood from the perspective of a library
> developer, not an application developer. Given any application based on
> couchdb, my library performs a support function for that application - in
> this case, providing workflow functionality. As part of its operation, the
> library needs to record a small amount of state information related to each
> document. There are many ways to record this data, but recording it on the
> document directly seems the easiest and most natural way.

The problem with opening up a user-controlled _annotation namespace
is: how you can you be sure other libraries aren't stepping on your
library's toes in there? The underscore doesn't really make it
special, if anyone can write to it.

The desktopcouch project has been working on some guidelines for
interoperability [1] between multiple applications dealing with the
same documents (think about using simultaneously, a web-based and a
desktop-based interface to your address book.)

They have a similar field they call application_annotations. You might
want to explore this discussion to see how other engineers have solved
a similar problem.


> I certainly wouldn't see this as 'punching a hole' in
> the reserved word scheme - its simply allocating part of the scheme for a
> particular usage.
> Anyhow, I'll leave it at that.

Keep up the interest, and also remember that patches are what really
counts for CouchDB.


Chris Anderson

View raw message