I'm writing a webapp in Javascript that talks to CouchDB. Are there any
conventions for choosing field names? Should my documents have fields like
"red_ball" or "redBall" or "red-ball"?
Seems like "red_ball" is the way to go, but then when I read JSON from CouchDB
into Javascript I have to either deal with a mix of naming conventions or
mangle the names manually (a la Rail's camelize()).
Suggestions?
Here are my thoughts:
* CouchDB's reserved fields (e.g., _revs_info) make me think that underscores
are standard.
* Mixing two naming conventions in one CouchDB document is confusing and
error-prone, so I should stick to _.
* But my JS code uses camel case, like everyone else's. If I directly read
underscored JSON from CouchDB, then my code will mix two different naming
conventions. Yuck.
* Or, I could rename fields when I read and write to CouchDB. Again, yuck.
* The CouchDB book offers no guidance on multi-word field names, as no
user-defined field in the book is more than one word long. The book uses a
dashed style ("hello-world") for db names, view names, show names, and _ids.
The book uses a camel case style ("function(newDoc, oldDoc, userCtx)") for JS
variable names.
* Jquery.couch.js is an inconsistent mix of underscore and camel case, even in
places (local vars, formal parameters) that never have to touch JSON.
Thanks,
Jon
