On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Pablo Castro
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
>> On Behalf Of [email protected]
>> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 5:07 PM
>>
>>>> So what happens if trying save in an object store which has the following
>>>> keypath, the following value. (The generated key is 4):
>>>>
>>>> "foo.bar"
>>>> { foo: {} }
>>>>
>>>> Here the resulting object is clearly { foo: { bar: 4 } }
>>>>
>>>> But what about
>>>>
>>>> "foo.bar"
>>>> { foo: { bar: 10 } }
>>>>
>>>> Does this use the value 10 rather than generate a new key, does it throw an
>>>> exception or does it store the value { foo: { bar: 4 } }?
>>
>> I suspect that all options are somewhat arbitrary here. I'll just propose
>> that we error out to ensure that nobody has the wrong expectations about the
>> implementation preserving the initial value. I would be open to other
>> options except silently overwriting the initial value with a generated one,
>> as that's likely to confuse folks.
>
> It's relatively common for me to need to supply a manual value for an
> id field that's automatically generated when working with databases,
> and I don't see any particular reason that my situation would change
> if using IndexedDB. So I think that a manually-supplied key should be
> kept.
I'm fine with either solution here. My database experience is too weak
to have strong opinions on this matter.
What do databases usually do with columns that use autoincrement but a
value is still supplied? My recollection is that that is generally
allowed?
>>>> What happens if the property is missing several parents, such as
>>>>
>>>> "foo.bar.baz"
>>>> { zip: {} }
>>>>
>>>> Does this throw or does it store { zip: {}, foo: { bar: { baz: 4 } } }
>>
>> We should just complete the object with all the missing parents.
>
> Agreed.
Works for me.
>>>> If we end up allowing array indexes in key paths (like "foo[1].bar") what
>>>> does
>>>> the following keypath/object result in?
>>
>> I think we can live without array indexing in keys for this round, it's
>> probably best to just leave them out and only allow paths.
>
> Agreed.
Works for me.
Actually, we could go even further and disallow paths entirely, and
just allow a property name. That is what the firefox implementation
currently does. That also sidesteps the issue of missing parents.
/ Jonas
