- From: Pablo Castro <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 00:26:24 +0000
- To: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
- CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
From: jorlow@google.com [mailto:jorlow@google.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 4:23 PM >> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Pablo Castro <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com> wrote: >> >> From: public-webapps-request@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonas Sicking >> Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 1:42 PM >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 7:32 AM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> wrote: >> >> > Any more thoughts on this? >> >> >> >> I don't feel strongly one way or another. Implementation wise I don't >> >> really understand why implementations couldn't use keys of unlimited >> >> size. I wouldn't imagine implementations would want to use fixed-size >> >> allocations for every key anyway, right (which would be a strong >> >> reason to keep maximum size down). >> I don't have a very strong opinion either. I don't quite agree with the guideline of "having something working slowly is better than not working at all"...as having something not work at all sometimes may help developers hit a wall and think differently about their approach for a given problem. That said, if folks think this is an instance where we're better off not having a limit I'm fine with it. >> >> My only concern is that the developer might not hit this wall, but then some user (doing things the developer didn't fully anticipate) could hit that wall. I can definitely see both sides of the argument though. And elsewhere we've headed more in the direction of forcing the developer to think about performance, but this case seems a bit more non-deterministic than any of those. Yeah, that's a good point for this case, avoiding data-dependent errors is probably worth the perf hit. -pc
Received on Wednesday, 15 December 2010 00:27:06 UTC