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

RE: [indexedDB] OptionalParameter question on IDBDatabase.createObjectStore

From: Israel Hilerio <israelh@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 16:24:58 +0000
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F695AF7AA77CC745A271AD0F61BBC61E3D129598@TK5EX14MBXC115.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 2011 12:43 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jonas@sicking.cc]
> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 12:43 PM
> To: Israel Hilerio
> Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [indexedDB] OptionalParameter question on
> IDBDatabase.createObjectStore
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Israel Hilerio <israelh@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
> > For the optional parameters variable that is expected by the
> > IDBDatabase.createObjectStore function, would it be possible to
> > constrain the variable to have the keyPath and autoIncrement
> > attributes as part of its instance members and not as part of its inheritance
> hierarchy?
> I think that would not ring well with the ECMAScript people in TC39.
> For example we asked that it should not be allowed to implement the
> properties using getters as to avoid having to worry about javascript running
> from inside the createObjectStore implementation, however the feedback we
> got was unanimously strongly opposed that.
> / Jonas

Makes sense!  What about lifting up the constraint around validating that the property bag have _only_ the specified properties and nothing else?  Thus, removing the following exception:
Exception --> NON_TRANSIENT_ERR	optionalParameters has attributes other than keyPath and autoIncrement.
The complexity increases the more things we have to validate against.

Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2011 16:25:29 UTC

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