W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: [IndexedDB] Closing on bug 9903 (collations)

From: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 09:38:14 +0530
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=-K=HfaZdoPgbW20oaW3FVuB=TQA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com>, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, Pablo Castro <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 5:27 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:

> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com> wrote:
> > The more I think about it, the more I want a user-specified comparison
> > function. Efficiency should not be an issue here - the engines should
> tweek
> > the JIT compiler to fix any efficiency issues. Just let the user pass a
> > closure (remember functions are first-class in JavaScript so this is not
> a
> > callback nor an event).
> I don't think we should do callbacks for the first version of
> javascript. It gets very messy since we can't rely on that the script
> function will be returning stable values.
> Additionally we'd either have to ask that the callback function is
> re-registered each time the database is opened, or somehow store a
> serialized copy of the callback function in the browser so that it's
> available the next time the database is opened. Neither of these
> things have been done in other APIs in the past, so if we hold up v1
> until we solve the challenges involved I think it will delay the
> release of a stable spec.
> So the choice here really is between only supporting some form of
> binary sorting, or supporting a built-in set of collations. Anything
> else will have to wait for version 2 in my opinion.

Agreed.  And I also agree with the logic behind punting to v2.

Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2011 04:09:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:19 UTC