W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: [IndexedDB] Proposal for async API changes

From: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 23:33:30 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTilEgDbtIcjcq7ShyUZTRgOJ_P-EfKhOwRnBjfos@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shawn Wilsher <sdwilsh@mozilla.com>
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Shawn Wilsher <sdwilsh@mozilla.com> wrote:

> On 5/20/2010 7:34 AM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
>
>> So far it's really just that joins are painful in IndexedDB. I'm working
>> on a blog post on this very topic though, and I'll be sure to point
>> everyone in this thread to it (I figure this is useful stuff to get out
>> to a wider audience).
>>
> And honestly, I thought that we had discussed joins on this list, but I
> only see a thread from Pablo mentioning it, but no real discussions. Should
> we start that?
>

Joins were actually in the original spec but taken out during the effort to
simply the API greatly.  IIRC, the main reason why Nikunj took them out is
that we believed you could fairly efficiently join yourself if you had 2
sorted lists and because we didn't see a simple way to do them without
introducing a lot of API surface area or creating (or borrowing) some sort
of syntax for the joins.  (Now that I think about it, though, maybe doing
this is not that big of a leap from what we're going to need to do to spec
keyPaths.  I'm starting to wonder if we need to rethink that as well....)

Anyway, the decision was made so long ago that maybe it's worth re-opening
the discussion.  I'll hunt through my mail archives tomorrow and start a new
thread with references to any original bits of info I can find.

J
Received on Thursday, 20 May 2010 22:34:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:38 GMT