On Nov 10, 2009, at 3:19 AM, Chris Anderson wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Roger Binns
<[email protected]> wrote:
I understand that it is just the way JS works and it is impractical
to fix.
I do think it would be valuable for there to be a test/compliance
suite in
CouchDB that at least detects and documents the issue for any view
server.
That is also valuable information for anyone choosing a view server.
This is definitely good to document. We've only recently added
integration tests of our view servers. Adding a patch to
test/query_server_spec.rb to check for your number handling case
wouldn't be hard, and might be a fun place to take up CouchDB hacking.
Big +1 from me. I'm a bit less laissez-faire (dare I say relaxed?)
about this issue than Chris and Paul. I think we absolutely can be
responsible for the behavior of the JavaScript query server -- we're
shipping the darn thing with CouchDB! :-) With that said, I can't say
for certain what is the best default solution. Some folks may prefer
the lossy handling of large numbers to a situation where CouchDB
rejects those documents or refuses to allow them to be indexed by a
particular view server.
Cataloging the limitations of different implementations is a great
place to start. Best,
Adam
