On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 8:00 PM, Noah Slater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 05:34:14PM -0800, Jan Lehnardt wrote: >> This keeps coming up. I am seeing the words "seems", "would", "some", >> "guess", >> "scenario", "brokeback mountain". I rather see numbers supporting the >> cause. So far, other things prove to be a bottleneck. I'd like to see a real >> app that would benefit from this. I'm not saying there is none, I'd just like >> to see it :) > > Brokeback mountain? What the... I think you've spent too long in the USA, you > must be getting travel sick. Come back to Europe as quick as you can! > > My opinion is that if the community (CouchDB or JSON) can propose a workable > JSON diff format with interoperable client implementations this would be a > huge > win for CouchDB, I wouldn't even need a specific use case to convince me. > > Damien points out that oftentimes large documents can be broken down into > smaller documents, and you, quite rightly, ask for specific use cases. My view > is that if the community can standardise this outside of CouchDB it's a > win/win > situation for everyone if we implement it. > > -- > Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater >
I'm with Noah on this one. Unlike other things I've seen recently, I do not want to implement shoddy half thought out specs on the fly in CouchDB. If the JSON community picked one, adding support would probably be trivial and useful. Until then I don't really see much of a point in creating some couchdb specific one. That's not to say that we might not want to poke the JSON community and say "decide" and use a bit of jan's clout to make things happen. :D Paul
