> On 16 Mar 2011, at 7:59 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > The best way to do this is likely to start a new thread (as the changes you > are > suggesting isn't limited to "Compound and multiple keys"), and put a > draft proposal there. > > It by no means has to be perfect (it took us a long time to polish IDB > into what it is today), but it needs to be more detailed than what you > are saying above. >
More thoughts: Firstly, my proposal for handling compound and multiple keys has already been put forward in a previous thread (i.e. adding the option to specify indexes to be modified when putting/deleting objects) so I see no need to create yet another thread. Secondly, in terms of IDB storing parts of application state, it is clear that this is a problem that needs to be addressed. I think you have said as much yourself? If so, then those drafting the IDB specification must take responsibility for fixing this, since it is an issue they created in the first place. Unless, of course they do not really believe it to be an issue, in which case it would be a filibuster to ask for a "draft proposal".
