On Feb 5, 2014, at 10:34 PM, Yaron Goland <[email protected]> wrote:
> Honestly this sounds like a good job for OPTIONS but Mark Nottingham would > disagree - see http://www.mnot.net/blog/2012/10/29/NO_OPTIONS. Isn't OPTIONS more about HTTP-level features? Like, what methods or Content-Types or Content-Encodings are accepted? I don't see it having a way to tell you what URLs are available, much less what options like query parameters or JSON content properties are allowed. > Personally I think a Couch DB specific solution (e.g. returning server data > as JSON on a GET request on the root of the server) is just fine. Good > general purpose solutions are hard. Good specific solutions tend to be easier. Agreed :) Where I think you mean CouchDB-the-API, not specifically CouchDB-the-Erlang-implementation. Anyway — I've filed a ticket in Jira: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-2052 —Jens
