On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 9:45 PM, ben turner bent.mozi...@gmail.com wrote:
I think this sounds like a fine idea.
-Ben Turner
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Hi all,
I found an old email with notes about features that we might want to put
in v2.
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Marc Fawzi marc.fa...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the same thought pattern can be applied elsewhere in the API
design for v2.
Consider the scenario of trying to find whether a given index exists or
not (upon upgradeneeded). For now, we have to write noisy code
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Joshua Bell jsb...@google.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 9:45 PM, ben turner bent.mozi...@gmail.com wrote:
I think this sounds like a fine idea.
-Ben Turner
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Hi all,
I found an
Joshua,
you're on, and I'll be happy to make suggestions once I've thought them
through... At least to some extent :)
Jonas,
There is a small performance difference between them though when
applied to indexes. Indexes could have multiple entries with the same
key (but different primaryKey),
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Marc Fawzi marc.fa...@gmail.com wrote:
Having said that, and speaking naively here, a synchronous .exists() or
.contains() would be useful as existence checks shouldn't have to be
exclusively asynchronous as that complicates how we'd write: if this exists
No, I was suggesting .exists() can be synchronous to make it useful
I referred to it as .contains() too so sorry if that conflated them for you but
it has nothing to do with the .contains Joshua was talking about.
In short, an asynchronous .exists() as you proposed does seem redundant
But I
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Marc Fawzi marc.fa...@gmail.com wrote:
No, I was suggesting .exists() can be synchronous to make it useful
I referred to it as .contains() too so sorry if that conflated them for you
but it has nothing to do with the .contains Joshua was talking about.
In
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Marc Fawzi marc.fa...@gmail.com wrote:
No, I was suggesting .exists() can be synchronous to make it useful
I referred to it as .contains() too so sorry if that conflated them for
you but it has nothing to do with the .contains Joshua was talking about.
In
We can do synchronous tests against the schema as it is feasible for
implementations to maintain a copy of the current schema for an open connection
in memory in the same thread/process as script. (Or at least, no implementer
has complained.)
Oh cool. So I could have a 3rd party component in
I think the same thought pattern can be applied elsewhere in the API design
for v2.
Consider the scenario of trying to find whether a given index exists or not
(upon upgradeneeded). For now, we have to write noisy code like
[].slice.call(objectStore.indexNames()).indexOf(someIndex) Why couldn't
I think this sounds like a fine idea.
-Ben Turner
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Hi all,
I found an old email with notes about features that we might want to put
in v2.
Almost all of them was recently brought up in the recent threads about
IDBv2.
11 matches
Mail list logo
