- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 14:05:57 -0800
- To: Pablo Castro <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>
- Cc: ben turner <bent.mozilla@gmail.com>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Pablo Castro
<Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> From: public-webapps-request@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonas Sicking
> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 12:21 PM
>
>>> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 12:09 PM, ben turner <bent.mozilla@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Hi folks,
>>> >
>>> > Currently there are only two ways to clear an object store of all
>>> > data: (i) remove the object store and recreate it, or (ii) open a
>>> > cursor and call remove for all entries. I propose a third, simpler
>>> > approach:
>>> >
>>> > interface IDBObjectStore
>>> > {
>>> > ...
>>> > void clear();
>>> > ...
>>> > };
>>> >
>>> > Any thoughts?
>>>
>>> Some background. At least in our implementation, removing each
>>> individual item is significantly slower than removing and recreating
>>> the objectStore. It's also significantly slower than a 'clear'
>>> function is. And while tearing down and recreating the objectStore
>>> works, it's fairly complex if there are multiple indexes on the store.
>>> Adding a clear() function, while redundant, should make things easier
>>> for developers while adding very little work in the implementation.
>>>
>>> I think there is a bug in the above proposal though. clear() should
>>> return a IDBRequest. However the .result of the request should likely
>>> be null.
>>>
>>> / Jonas
>
> +1 on having clear(). We ran into the need also while playing with samples and such.
I filed a bug[1] on this and updated the spec [2].
[1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11266
[2] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndexedDB/rev/5de451aac387
/ Jonas
Received on Monday, 8 November 2010 22:06:48 UTC