The approach you described makes sense to us.
Thanks for clarifying.
Israel
On Saturday, March 03, 2012 5:07 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com wrote:
We would like some clarification on this scenario. When you say that
FF will
Awesome, I've updated the spec to hopefully be clear on this.
/ Jonas
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com wrote:
I was originally referring to the second scenario. However, I agree with you
that we shouldn't support this scenario. I just wanted to confirm
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 03:44:57 +0100, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Awesome, I've updated the spec to hopefully be clear on this.
I've been following along and silently +1'ing the outcomes of the
different emails, just without the added email noise which wasn't really
required from
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com wrote:
There seems to be some cases where it might be useful to be able to get a
count of all the duplicates contained in a multiEntry index. Do you guys
see this as an important scenario?
Not exactly sure what you mean
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Hi All,
What should we do if an array which is used for a multiEntry index
contains multiple entries with the same value? I.e. consider the
following code:
store = db.createObjectStore(store);
index1 =
We would like some clarification on this scenario. When you say that FF will
result on 1 index entry for each index that implies that the duplicates are
automatically removed. That implies that the multiEntry flag doesn't take
unique into consideration. Is this correct?
There seems to be
Hi All,
What should we do if an array which is used for a multiEntry index
contains multiple entries with the same value? I.e. consider the
following code:
store = db.createObjectStore(store);
index1 = store.createIndex(index1, a, { multiEntry: true });
index2 = store.createIndex(index2, b, {
