RE: [Bug 11351] New: [IndexedDB] Should we have a maximum key size (or something like that)?

From: [] On Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 4:23 PM

>> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Pablo Castro <> wrote:
>> From: [] On Behalf Of Jonas Sicking
>> Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 1:42 PM
>> >> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 7:32 AM, Jeremy Orlow <> wrote:
>> >> > Any more thoughts on this?
>> >>
>> >> I don't feel strongly one way or another. Implementation wise I don't
>> >> really understand why implementations couldn't use keys of unlimited
>> >> size. I wouldn't imagine implementations would want to use fixed-size
>> >> allocations for every key anyway, right (which would be a strong
>> >> reason to keep maximum size down).
>> I don't have a very strong opinion either. I don't quite agree with the guideline of "having something working slowly is better than not working at all" having something not work at all sometimes may help developers hit a wall and think differently about their approach for a given problem. That said, if folks think this is an instance where we're better off not having a limit I'm fine with it.
>> My only concern is that the developer might not hit this wall, but then some user (doing things the developer didn't fully anticipate) could hit that wall.  I can definitely see both sides of the argument though.  And elsewhere we've headed more in the direction of forcing the developer to think about performance, but this case seems a bit more non-deterministic than any of those.
Yeah, that's a good point for this case, avoiding data-dependent errors is probably worth the perf hit.


Received on Wednesday, 15 December 2010 00:27:06 UTC