- From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 20:10:33 -0800
- To: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
- CC: Pablo Castro <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>, Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4D76FDB9.5080803@jumis.com>
On 3/8/2011 6:12 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Pablo Castro > <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com <mailto:Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>> wrote: > > > From: public-webapps-request@w3.org > <mailto:public-webapps-request@w3.org> > [mailto:public-webapps-request@w3.org > <mailto:public-webapps-request@w3.org>] On Behalf Of Keean Schupke > Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 3:03 PM > > >> No objections here. > >> > >> Keean. > >> > >> On 8 March 2011 21:14, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Jeremy Orlow > <jorlow@chromium.org <mailto:jorlow@chromium.org>> wrote: > >> > On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 1:41 AM, Jeremy Orlow > <jorlow@chromium.org <mailto:jorlow@chromium.org>> wrote: > > >> > 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. > > Option A is pretty well understood, I like that one. > > For option B, at some point we had a debate on whether when > indexing an array value we should consider it a single key value > or we should unfold it into multiple index records. The first > option makes it very similar to A in that an array is just a > composite value (it is quite a bit more painful to implement...), > the second option is interesting in that allows for new scenarios > such as objects with an array for tags, where you want to look up > by tag (even after doing options A and B as currently defined, in > order support multiple tags you'd need a second store that keeps > the tags + key for the objects you want to tag). Is there any > interest in that scenario? > > > Yes. Once we're settled on this, I'm going to send an email on that. > :-) Option b won't get in the way of my proposal. > > J At some point, I really would like to get people from the PostgreSQL project involved with indexeddb. They have a wealth of experience to bring to the discussion. For the moment, like many "server-side" packages, they're at quite a distance from the w3. FWIW, pgsql is a perfectly valid 'host' for idb calls.
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2011 04:10:56 UTC