Re: [IndexedDB] Detailed comments for the current draft

On 1/31/2010 11:33 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
>> a.       3.1.3: do we really need in-line + out-of-line keys? Besides 
>> the concept-count increase, we wonder whether out-of-line keys would 
>> cause trouble to generic libraries, as the values for the keys 
>> wouldn't be part of the values iterated when doing a "foreach" over 
>> the table.
> Certainly it is a matter of prioritizing among various requirements. 
> Out-of-line keys enable people to store simple persistent hash maps. I 
> think it would be wrong to require that data be always stored as 
> objects. A library can always elide the availability of out-of-line 
> keys if that poses a problem to its users.
What about just supporting out-of-line keys?  If somebody wanted the key 
to be part of what they were iterating, they could still have the object 
contain the key.

With that said, wouldn't a persistent hash map be better done in local 
or session storage?  I really think we should drop one of these 
concepts.  I don't presently have a strong opinion on which.



Received on Thursday, 25 March 2010 21:57:32 UTC