Oh, ok. This means the cornerstone of my library is built upon a bug :)
Is there any way I can define such a key, in order to interfere as less as possible with library user's data? (i was thinking perhaps externals some way to define some "reserved" keys?) Anyways thanks! Francisco 2009/8/26 Paul Davis <[email protected]>: > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:33 AM, francisco > treacy<[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm storing documents like this in CouchDB 0.9 >> >> {"_id":"_design/surf","_rev":"1-455975032","_type": "mytype" } >> >> without any problem. >> >> However apparently it does not work on CouchDB 0.9.1: >> >> Response while PUTting: HTTP 500: >> {"error":"doc_validation","reason":"Bad special document member: >> _type"} >> >> Could you tell me what the policy is for underscored keys, is it >> allowed or not? Has this changed between releases? >> I would like to keep my Scala CouchDB client up-to-date. >> > > The 0.9.0 behaviour is a bug. You should be able to see it by trying > to store an integer value like {"_type": 2} which should be rejected. > >> Thank you, >> >> Francisco >> > > HTH, > Paul Davis >
