Is CouchDB best suited for dynamic languages?

Question

I'm familiar with CouchDB and the idea of mapping its results to Scala objects, as well as find some natural way to iteract with it, came immediatly.

But I see that Dynamic languages such as Ruby and Javascript do things very well with the json/document-centric/shchema-free aproach of CouchDB.

Any good aproach to do things with Couch in static languages?

Quilting

You can see this questions as: Are dynamic languages best suited for CouchDB? – Quilting

Answer 1

I understand that CouchDB works purely with JSON objects. Since JSON is untyped, it's tempting to believe that it's more naturally suited for dynamic languages. However, XML is generally untyped too, and Scala has very good library support for creating and manipulating XML. For an exploration of Scala's XML features, see: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/x-scalaxml/

Likewise with JSON. With the proper library support, dealing with JSON can feel natural even in static languages. For one approach to dealing with JSON data in Scala, see this article: http://technically.us/code/x/weaving-tweed-with-scala-and-json/

With object databases in general, sometimes it's convenient to define a "model" (using, for example, a class in the language) and use JSON or XML or some other untyped document language to be a serialized representation of the class. Proper library support can then translate between the serialized form (like JSON) and the in-memory data structures, with static typing and all the goodies that come with it. For one example of this approach, see Lift's Record which has added conversions to and from JSON: http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb/msg/63bb390a820d11ba

Annal

Thanks Ortiz! It would be nice to do with JSON what we can with XML in Scala, right? – Quilting

Yeah. I think n8han's library (linked above) is a fantastic start, but a lot more can be done for better JSON library support in Scala. – Annal

Answer 2

I wonder if you asked the right question. Why are you using Scala, and not dynamic languages? Probably because of some goodness that Scala provides you that is important for you and, I assume, your code quality. Then why aren't you using a "statically typed" (i.e. schema-based) database either? Once again I'm just assuming, but the ability to respond to change comes to mind. Production SQL databases have a horrible tendency of being very difficult to change and refactor.

So, your data is weakly typed, and your code is strongly typed. But somewhere you'll need to make the transition. This means that somewhere, you'll have a "schema" for your data even though the database has none. This schema is defined by the classes you're mapping Couch documents onto. This makes perfect sense; most uses of Couch that I've seen have a key such as "type" and for each type at least some common set of keys. Whether to hand-map the JSON to these Scala classes or to use e.g. fancy reflection tools (slower but pretty), or some even fancier Scala feature that I'm yet new to is a detail. Start with the easy-but-slow one, then see if it's fast enough.

The big thing occurs when your classes, i.e. your schema, change. Instead of ALTER'ing your tables, you can just change the class, ensure that you do something smart if for some document a key you expect is missing (because it was based on an older version of the class), and off you go. Responding to change has never been easier, and still your code is as statically typed as it can get.

If this is not good enough for you, and you want no schema at all, then you're effectively saying that you don't want to use classes to define and manipulate your data. That's fine too (though I can't imagine a use), but then the question is not about dynamic vs static languages, but about whether to use class-based OO languages at all.

Kellner