Re: [IndexedDB] Behavior of IDBObjectStore.get() and IDBObjectStore.delete() when record doesn't exist

On 11/11/2010 11:44 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> The email I responded to: "It would make sense if you make setting a key to
> undefined semantically equivalent to deleting the value (and no error if it
> does not exist), and return undefined on a get when no such key exists. That
> way 'undefined' cannot exist as a value in the object store, and is a safe
> marker for the key not existing in that index."
>
> undefined should be symmetric.  If something not existing returns undefined
> then passing in undefined should make it not exist.  Overloading the meaning
> of a get returning undefined is ugly.  And simply disallowing a value also
> seems a bit odd.  But I think this is pretty elegant semantically.
Sorry, but I disagree.  I feel that calling put results in a deletion to 
be highly counter-intuitive, even if it makes sense when you think about it.

Cheers,

Shawn