I don't have an opinion about addOrModify but in the Firefox build I'm messing with the cursor has an update method that I find highly useful and efficient.
-Mikeal On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Jonas Sicking <jo...@sicking.cc> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Nikunj Mehta <nik...@o-micron.com> wrote: >> >> On Jun 16, 2010, at 9:58 AM, Shawn Wilsher wrote: >> >>> On 6/16/2010 9:43 AM, Nikunj Mehta wrote: >>>> There are three theoretical modes as you say. However, the second mode >>>> does not exist in practice. If you must overwrite, then you know that the >>>> record exists and hence don't need to specify that option. >>> To be clear, you are saying that there are only two modes in practice: >>> 1) add >>> 2) add or modify >>> >>> But you don't believe that "modify" doesn't exist in practice? In terms of >>> SQL, these three concepts exists and get used all the time. "add" maps to >>> INSERT INTO, "add or modify" maps to INSERT OR REPLACE INTO, and "modify" >>> maps to UPDATE. >> >> IndexedDB is not SQL, I think you would agree. UPDATE is useful when you >> replace on a column, by column basis and, hence, need to do a blind update. >> When updating a record in IndexedDB, you'd have to be certain about the >> state of the entire record. Hence, it makes sense to leave out UPDATE >> semantics in IndexedDB. > > I can't say that I have a strong sense of if "modify" is needed or > not. On the surface if seems strange to leave out, but it's entirely > possible that it isn't needed. > > Unless someone provides a good use case, I would be fine with leaving > it out and seeing if people ask for it. > > / Jonas > >
