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

Re: [IndexedDB] Compound and multiple keys

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 19:54:44 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTikNNsonbqEcAe1AKK4+Sk30a4-C_9Tz5yOYEWs-@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joran Greef <joran@ronomon.com>
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 11:13 PM, Joran Greef <joran@ronomon.com> wrote:
>> On 16 Mar 2011, at 7:59 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> The best way to do this is likely to start a new thread (as the changes you are
>> suggesting isn't limited to "Compound and multiple keys"), and put a
>> draft proposal there.
>>
>> It by no means has to be perfect (it took us a long time to polish IDB
>> into what it is today), but it needs to be more detailed than what you
>> are saying above.
>>
>
> More thoughts:
>
> Firstly, my proposal for handling compound and multiple keys has already been put forward in a previous thread (i.e. adding the option to specify indexes to be modified when putting/deleting objects) so I see no need to create yet another thread.
>
> Secondly, in terms of IDB storing parts of application state, it is clear that this is a problem that needs to be addressed. I think you have said as much yourself? If so, then those drafting the IDB specification must take responsibility for fixing this, since it is an issue they created in the first place. Unless, of course they do not really believe it to be an issue, in which case it would be a filibuster to ask for a "draft proposal".

Yes, your proposal to add the ability to specify index values as part
of the add and put methods has been discussed elsewhere, so if further
discussions are needed lets continue them there.

I don't understand what you are saying about application state though,
so please do start that as a separate thread.

/ Jonas
Received on Sunday, 20 March 2011 02:55:48 GMT

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