Noah Slater wrote:
On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 08:42:10PM -0800, Chris Anderson wrote:
The overall picture here is not getting it right but rather having running code.
I absolutely disagree, but that's just how I roll.
It seems the goal here was to collaboratively develop a standard for interop
between developers in the community. Opening that up to the CouchDB community is
great, but it's not enough. If this is something that I'm going to care about, I
need to see it opened up to the entire engineering community, and focusing our
efforts around an RFC is exactly the way to do that.
Hell, why stop there? Send it to the United Nations. Or the United
Federation of Planets.
I agree with Noah in principle, but the low chance of receiving an IETF
RFC blessing discourages me from investing my own time into pursuing that.
Earlier, someone called this middle-ware and I like that idea. It seems
improper to be in CouchDB itself. Perhaps it could be an external
process, or as another HTTP service (either an intelligent CouchDB proxy
or just a separate tool that depends on couch). Since developers of all
languages would likely want this, it doesn't make sense to do it as e.g.
a Python library.
--
Jason Smith
Proven Corporation
Bangkok, Thailand
http://www.proven-corporation.com
