- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 05:13:30 +0100
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
* Jonas Sicking wrote: >The question is in part where the limit for "ridiculous" goes. 1K keys >are sort of ridiculous, though I'm sure it happens. By "ridiculous" I mean that common systems would run out of memory. That is different among systems, and I would expect developers to consider it up to an order of magnitude, but not beyond that. Clearly, to me, a DB system should not fail because I want to store 100 keys á 100KB. >> Note that, since JavaScript does not offer key-value dictionaries for >> complex keys, and now that JSON.stringify is widely implemented, it's >> quite common for people to emulate proper dictionaries by using that to >> work around this particular JavaScript limitation. Which would likely >> extend to more persistent forms of storage. > >I don't understand what you mean here. I am saying that it's quite natural to want to have string keys that are much, much longer than someone might envision the length of string keys, mainly because their notion of "string keys" is different from the key length you might get from serializing arbitrary objects. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Saturday, 20 November 2010 04:13:43 UTC