Re: [IndexedDB] .value of no-duplicate cursors

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 4:29 AM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 12:21 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>>
>> This discussion seemed to die off with no clear resolution.
>>
>> Since I had forgotten about this thread I specified that the first
>> item is always the one returned for _NO_DUPLICATE cursors. Where
>> "first" means "with lowest object-store key".
>
> It seems as though "first" should mean with the highest key in the case of
> reverse cursors.  This is how it's implemented in Chromium.

The reason I specced it they way I did, with the "lowest" key always
being used, is that this way a NEXT_NO_DUPLICATE and a
PREV_NO_DUPLICATE cursor iterate the same entries. It seems unexpected
that reversing direction would return different results?

/ Jonas