Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
CouchDB-Python
Home
+ new post
About this group
Join this group
Message from discussion Leaving database name validation to CouchDB
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Matt Goodall  
View profile  
 More options Nov 18 2011, 6:20 am
From: Matt Goodall <matt.good...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:20:12 +0000
Local: Fri, Nov 18 2011 6:20 am
Subject: Re: Leaving database name validation to CouchDB
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On 18 November 2011 10:42, Dirkjan Ochtman <dirk...@ochtman.nl> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:24, Matt Goodall <matt.good...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Same status code, but no JSON body so no useful error message:

> Could we just interpret a 400 Bad Request response in
> Server.__getitem__ and throw the nice error message we already know
> belongs there (or something very close)?

I've just looked through the CouchDB source and *currently* that would
work ... I think. However, I really don't like the idea of taking
guesses at errors - if we got it wrong it would be quite misleading.
That would be like a docstring that lies about a function's
implementation ;-).

I've crudely (and I do mean that!) checked the performance of HEAD vs
GET. GET is a bit slower as expected, but it looks minimal. Maybe 1%
slower performing 5000 Database.__nonzero__ calls with no obvious
impact on the CouchDB backend.

Personally, I think I've come to the conclusion that I'm in favour of
retaining the current API and accepting the very minor hit related to
GET vs HEAD.

- Matt


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google