- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:14:21 -0800
- To: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 1:41 AM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com> wrote:
>>> > Compound primary keys are commonly used afaik.
>>>
>>> Indeed. It's one of the common themes in the debate between natural
>>> and synthetic keys.
>>
>> Fair enough.
>> Should we allow explicit compound keys? I.e myOS.put({...}, ['first
>> name', 'last name'])? I feel pretty strongly that if we do, we should
>> require this be specified up-front when creating the objectStore. I.e. add
>> some additional parameter to the optional options object. Otherwise, we'll
>> force implementations to handle variable compound keys for just this one
>> case, which seems kind of silly.
>> The other option is to just disallow them.
>
> After thinking about it a bunch and talking to others, I'm actually leaning
> towards both option A and B. Although this will be a little harder for
> implementors, it seems like there are solid reasons why some users would
> want to use A and solid reasons why others would want to use B.
> Any objections to us going that route?
Not from me. If I don't hear objections I'll write up a spec draft and
attach it here before committing to the spec.
/ Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2011 21:15:23 UTC