No objections here. Keean.
On 8 March 2011 21:14, Jonas Sicking <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Jeremy Orlow <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 1:41 AM, Jeremy Orlow <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Keean Schupke <[email protected]> > 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 >
