- From: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 09:24:59 -0700
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: Nikunj Mehta <nikunj@o-micron.com>, Shawn Wilsher <sdwilsh@mozilla.com>, Kris Zyp <kris@sitepen.com>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <AANLkTiniklXCighsLQtphyBOUKN-8ETUjlmBBVAR3ro1@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Nikunj Mehta <nikunj@o-micron.com> > wrote: > > > > On Jun 16, 2010, at 9:58 AM, Shawn Wilsher wrote: > > > >> On 6/16/2010 9:43 AM, Nikunj Mehta wrote: > >>> There are three theoretical modes as you say. However, the second mode > does not exist in practice. If you must overwrite, then you know that the > record exists and hence don't need to specify that option. > >> To be clear, you are saying that there are only two modes in practice: > >> 1) add > >> 2) add or modify > >> > >> But you don't believe that "modify" doesn't exist in practice? In terms > of SQL, these three concepts exists and get used all the time. "add" maps > to INSERT INTO, "add or modify" maps to INSERT OR REPLACE INTO, and "modify" > maps to UPDATE. > > > > IndexedDB is not SQL, I think you would agree. > Sure. But it's not BerkeleyDB either (even though it is much more similar). Lets stick to technical reasoning and not rhetoric, pleassseeeee. > > UPDATE is useful when you replace on a column, by column basis and, > hence, need to do a blind update. When updating a record in IndexedDB, you'd > have to be certain about the state of the entire record. Hence, it makes > sense to leave out UPDATE semantics in IndexedDB. > Very good point. > I can't say that I have a strong sense of if "modify" is needed or > not. On the surface if seems strange to leave out, but it's entirely > possible that it isn't needed. > > Unless someone provides a good use case, I would be fine with leaving > it out and seeing if people ask for it. > Me too. On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Shawn Wilsher <sdwilsh@mozilla.com> wrote: > So, in summary, I agree to splitting the put method in to two - put and >> putNoOverwrite. I am also in favor of retaining the name as put (contrasted >> with get). I would like to avoid bikeshedding on names even though there >> have been ample opportunities on this list lately with that. >> > I think you are completely ignoring the arguments in this thread about the > issues with naming it put. I don't think it is bikeshedding; these seem > like legitimate concerns. Agreed. We need to at least discuss whether aligning with REST is important. I don't care much either way, but you should at least give Kris a chance to respond. Also, if there are only 2 states (overwrite and noOverwrite) then a parameter to put (rather than 2 functions) might still be the best approach. J
Received on Thursday, 17 June 2010 16:25:52 UTC