On Dec 28, 2008, at 8:19 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 08:12:10AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
I've had this debate internally at 10gen too, and I'm not
interested in
picking a fight here :) I think that by reserving fields like this,
you can't
claim to be storing JSON anymore, but "JSON--" or "almost JSON".
I think this is bogus. I've started calling these JSON profiles and
they are
just as much JSON as an XML vocabulary is a type of XML.
<sigh> :)
I didn't want to start this argument.
My point is that an arbitrary, legal JSON document can have "_id" and
"_rev" as fields, but you couldn't store that in CouchDB (or MongoDB,
for that matter), since CouchDB would want to use those reserved field
names for itself.
Maybe an example in XML-land might illustrate better - I think it
would be the same if an XML data store restricted the entities that
you could put in your schema...
Or maybe I can express it as a preference - I'd like a system that
could store any arbitrary JSON document.
That's all.
geir
