W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2010

Re: [IndexedDB] Detailed comments for the current draft

From: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@google.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:03:31 +0000
Message-ID: <5dd9e5c51002180703j2eafc02es35d18664572a640a@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pablo Castro <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>
Cc: Nikunj Mehta <nikunj@o-micron.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 3:37 AM, Pablo Castro <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>wrote:

> > > I prefer to leave composite keys to a future version.
> I don't think we can get away with this. For indexes this is quite common
> (if anything else to have stable ordering when the prefix of the index has
> repeats). Once we have it for indexes the delta for having it for primary
> keys as well is pretty small (although I wouldn't oppose leaving out
> composite primary keys if that would help scope the feature).

After talking to some of our web app teams at Google, I'm going to have to
strongly agree with this.  As far as we can tell, there's no efficient way
to emulate this behavior in JavaScript and it's a pretty common use case.
Received on Thursday, 18 February 2010 15:04:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:22 UTC