W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: [IndexedDB] Compound and multiple keys

From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 20:10:33 -0800
Message-ID: <4D76FDB9.5080803@jumis.com>
To: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
CC: Pablo Castro <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>, Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 3/8/2011 6:12 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Pablo Castro 
> <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com <mailto:Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     From: public-webapps-request@w3.org
>     <mailto:public-webapps-request@w3.org>
>     [mailto:public-webapps-request@w3.org
>     <mailto:public-webapps-request@w3.org>] On Behalf Of Keean Schupke
>     Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 3:03 PM
>
>     >> No objections here.
>     >>
>     >> Keean.
>     >>
>     >> On 8 March 2011 21:14, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>     >> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Jeremy Orlow
>     <jorlow@chromium.org <mailto:jorlow@chromium.org>> wrote:
>     >> > On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 1:41 AM, Jeremy Orlow
>     <jorlow@chromium.org <mailto:jorlow@chromium.org>> wrote:
>
>     >> > After thinking about it a bunch and talking to others, I'm
>     actually leaning
>     >> > towards both option A and B.  Although this will be a little
>     harder for
>     >> > implementors, it seems like there are solid reasons why some
>     users would
>     >> > want to use A and solid reasons why others would want to use B.
>     >> > Any objections to us going that route?
>     >> Not from me. If I don't hear objections I'll write up a spec
>     draft and
>     >> attach it here before committing to the spec.
>
>     Option A is pretty well understood, I like that one.
>
>     For option B, at some point we had a debate on whether when
>     indexing an array value we should consider it a single key value
>     or we should unfold it into multiple index records. The first
>     option makes it very similar to A in that an array is just a
>     composite value (it is quite a bit more painful to implement...),
>     the second option is interesting in that allows for new scenarios
>     such as objects with an array for tags, where you want to look up
>     by tag (even after doing options A and B as currently defined, in
>     order support multiple tags you'd need a second store that keeps
>     the tags + key for the objects you want to tag). Is there any
>     interest in that scenario?
>
>
> Yes.  Once we're settled on this, I'm going to send an email on that. 
>  :-)  Option b won't get in the way of my proposal.
>
> J

At some point, I really would like to get people from the PostgreSQL 
project involved with indexeddb.

They have a wealth of experience to bring to the discussion. For the 
moment, like many "server-side" packages, they're at quite a distance 
from the w3.

FWIW, pgsql is a perfectly valid 'host' for idb calls.
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2011 04:10:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:43 GMT