Re: [w3c/IndexedDB] Add descending order for getAll() and getAllKeys() (#130)

evanstade left a comment (w3c/IndexedDB#130)

My initial reaction was that this feature detection problem must have been solved elsewhere. But actually, it seems like it's just [been a problem forever](https://github.com/whatwg/webidl/issues/107).

I think I would go with #1 --- hopefully the con is a non-issue, i.e. browser vendors will be allocating resources to add `getAllRecords` support along with reverse `getAll`. This doesn't solve the hypothetical future dilemma, but it does follow the standard approach of using an optional dictionary for options, and doesn't get us any *farther* from solving the future feature detection problem, which is apparently hard.

Another option would be adding a `getAllAdvanced` instead of overloading `getAll`, which also only solves our problem this one time, and is generally sort of gross? But at least doesn't force `getAllRecords` to be implemented. (I don't know if a suffix like "Advanced", a la the Windows idiom of "Ex", is officially banned; I'm sure it's not recommended if there are better options. But this filler word could be anything really, such as "Options".)

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/IndexedDB/issues/130#issuecomment-2860465489
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3c/IndexedDB/issues/130/2860465489@github.com>