W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: [IndexedDB] Behavior of IDBObjectStore.get() and IDBObjectStore.delete() when record doesn't exist

From: Shawn Wilsher <sdwilsh@mozilla.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 12:34:10 -0800
Message-ID: <4CDC5342.40901@mozilla.com>
To: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 11/11/2010 11:44 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> The email I responded to: "It would make sense if you make setting a key to
> undefined semantically equivalent to deleting the value (and no error if it
> does not exist), and return undefined on a get when no such key exists. That
> way 'undefined' cannot exist as a value in the object store, and is a safe
> marker for the key not existing in that index."
>
> undefined should be symmetric.  If something not existing returns undefined
> then passing in undefined should make it not exist.  Overloading the meaning
> of a get returning undefined is ugly.  And simply disallowing a value also
> seems a bit odd.  But I think this is pretty elegant semantically.
Sorry, but I disagree.  I feel that calling put results in a deletion to 
be highly counter-intuitive, even if it makes sense when you think about it.

Cheers,

Shawn



Received on Thursday, 11 November 2010 20:34:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:41 GMT