On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Damien Katz <[email protected]> wrote: > My other reason to drop couch.js from the test is it risks becoming the > defacto JS library, and not a very good one. Because we are trying to keep > it simple for the tests, it doesn't have lots of features that would be more > useful for real development (like async support). I'd prefer couch.js be > exactly what it needs to be for useful in a browser without serving the > needs of the test suite.
That's funny, I've had sort of the opposite perspective. For in-browser development, the Futon jQuery CouchDB library seems like the defacto stadard. It supports asynchronous calls and has a nicer abstraction layer than couch.js. OTOH, couch.js makes a great reference for building non-JavaScript libraries, as most languages don't use the asynchronous http request model that JavaScript tends to, but couch.js avoids. I think that if we concentrate on keeping couch.js at the right level of abstraction for the test suite, we'll be happiest. I agree that the test suite needs cleanup, but I don't think pulling couch.js out of it will make it any clearer. Chris -- Chris Anderson http://jchris.mfdz.com
