http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11270
Summary: Interaction between in-line keys and key generators
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: PC
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Prio
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>> Similar to Kris, I think worrying about 'undefined' is worrying about
>>> an edge case. Simplicity is better than trying to cove every possible
>>> edge case.
>>
>> I thought edge cases are precisely what a specification is supposed to deal
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11269
Summary: Evaluating keyPaths needs to be better specified
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: PC
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priorit
Sounds good to me...
Cheers,
Keean.
On 9 November 2010 00:16, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Keean Schupke wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >>
> >> Why do you want to check that a key exists before you delete it? Why
> >> not just call delete(key) always and rest assured that it's
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Keean Schupke wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>
>> Why do you want to check that a key exists before you delete it? Why
>> not just call delete(key) always and rest assured that it's gone?
>
> because it will throw an exception if the key does not exist...
That is no longer the ca
Hi,
> Why do you want to check that a key exists before you delete it? Why
> not just call delete(key) always and rest assured that it's gone?
>
>
because it will throw an exception if the key does not exist...
> Don't you need to coordinate with other developers to know what any
> other value
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Keean Schupke wrote:
> If more than one developer are working on a project, there is no way I can
> know if the other developer has put 'undefined' objects into the store
> (unless the specification enforces it).
> So every time I am checking if a key exists (maybe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
If you are looking for ways to shoot yourself in the foot, why not
just do:
undefined = true;
Storing undefined is not an important use case, practical usage is far
more important than optimizing for edge cases just because you can
think of them.
Kri
If more than one developer are working on a project, there is no way I can
know if the other developer has put 'undefined' objects into the store
(unless the specification enforces it).
So every time I am checking if a key exists (maybe to delete the key) I need
to check if it _really_ exists, or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
+1 from me. The purpose of undefined in JavaScript is to represent the
value of a non-existent key, it fits perfectly with get() for a key
that doesn't exist. This is exactly how property access works with
JavaScript objects, so it is consistent and
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Keean Schupke wrote:
> Let me put it another way. Why do you want to allow putting 'undefined' into
> the object store? All that does is make the API for get ambiguous. What does
> it gain you? Why do you want to make 'get' ambiguous?
It seems like a loose-loose si
Let me put it another way. Why do you want to allow putting 'undefined' into
the object store? All that does is make the API for get ambiguous. What does
it gain you? Why do you want to make 'get' ambiguous?
I think having an unambiguous API for 'get' is worth more than being able to
'put' 'undefi
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Keean Schupke wrote:
> The problem I am trying to solve is not knowing if "get(key) === undefined"
> means the key does not exist or there is a key with a value of undefined.
> The solution is to disallow inserting undefined. Now there is no ambiguity,
> if get(key)
The problem I am trying to solve is not knowing if "get(key) === undefined"
means the key does not exist or there is a key with a value of undefined.
The solution is to disallow inserting undefined. Now there is no ambiguity,
if get(key) returns undefined, it _must_ be because the key does not exi
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Keean Schupke wrote:
> What is the use case for storing undefined in an object-store?
I don't know. But if that's not the problem you were trying to solve,
then what problem were you trying to solve?
/ Jonas
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Pablo Castro
wrote:
>
> From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Jonas Sicking
> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 12:21 PM
>
>>> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 12:09 PM, ben turner wrote:
>>> > Hi folks,
>>> >
>>> > Currentl
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11266
Jonas Sicking changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
What is the use case for storing undefined in an object-store?
Cheers,
Keean.
On 8 November 2010 20:59, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Keean Schupke wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >> > I don't understand that.
> >> > with the proposal, undefined clearly means the entry does not
This discussion seemed to die off with no clear resolution.
Since I had forgotten about this thread I specified that the first
item is always the one returned for _NO_DUPLICATE cursors. Where
"first" means "with lowest object-store key".
I don't feel strongly either way if they should be removed
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11266
Summary: Add IDBObjectStore.clear()
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: PC
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Compone
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Keean Schupke wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> > I don't understand that.
>> > with the proposal, undefined clearly means the entry does not exist as
>> > there is no way to put an undefined into the object store (as
>> > .put(undefined, key) deletes the entry).
>>
>> The confusi
Hi,
> I don't understand that.
> > with the proposal, undefined clearly means the entry does not exist as
> there is no way to put an undefined into the object store (as
> .put(undefined, key) deletes the entry).
>
> The confusing part is that a function called 'put' actually deletes
> something,
On Monday, November 8, 2010, Keean Schupke wrote:
> Hi,
> Indeed. But I think this is more unexpected and confusing than having
> .get() return the same thing if the entry exists as if it contains
> undefined.
>
> / Jonas
>
> I don't understand that.
> with the proposal, undefined clearly means th
I was only suggesting this as it makes the operations symmetrical in the
sense that if "get" returns undefined for "key does not exist",
"put(undefined, key)" should mean make this key not exist, in a declarative
sense.
For me this is clearer than the alternatives (which may require exceptions
to
Hi,
> Indeed. But I think this is more unexpected and confusing than having
> .get() return the same thing if the entry exists as if it contains
> undefined.
>
> / Jonas
>
I don't understand that.
with the proposal, undefined clearly means the entry does not exist as there
is no way to put an u
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Keean Schupke wrote:
> Hi,
> In code, if:
> idbObjectStoreSync.put(key, undefined) does the same as
> idbObjectStoreSync.remove(key)
> then
> idbObjectStoreSync.get(key) can safely return undefined for no such key
> exists.
>
> Consider:
> idbObjectStoreSync.put(
Obviously I need to the key and value the correct way around for 'put'...
Cheers,
Keean.
On 8 November 2010 18:41, Keean Schupke wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In code, if:
>
> idbObjectStoreSync.put(key, undefined) does the same as
> idbObjectStoreSync.remove(key)
>
> then
>
> idbObjectStoreSync.get(key)
Hi,
In code, if:
idbObjectStoreSync.put(key, undefined) does the same as
idbObjectStoreSync.remove(key)
then
idbObjectStoreSync.get(key) can safely return undefined for no such key
exists.
Consider:
idbObjectStoreSync.put('mykey', undefined); // deletes the object stored
under mykey or noo
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Keean Schupke wrote:
> It would make sense if you make setting a key to undefined semantically
> equivalent to deleting the value (and no error if it does not exist), and
> return undefined on a get when no such key exists. That way 'undefined'
> cannot exist as a
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9882
Jonas Sicking changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
It would make sense if you make setting a key to undefined semantically
equivalent to deleting the value (and no error if it does not exist), and
return undefined on a get when no such key exists. That way 'undefined'
cannot exist as a value in the object store, and is a safe marker for the
key not
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> One of the things we discussed at TPAC was the fact that
> IDBObjectStore.get() and IDBObjectStore.delete() currently fire an
> error event if no record with the supplied key exists.
>
> Especially for .delete() this seems suboptim
Hi All,
One of the things we discussed at TPAC was the fact that
IDBObjectStore.get() and IDBObjectStore.delete() currently fire an
error event if no record with the supplied key exists.
Especially for .delete() this seems suboptimal as the author wanted
the entry with the given key removed anywa
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10402
Jonas Sicking changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10430
Jonas Sicking changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11187
Jonas Sicking changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10088
Jonas Sicking changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10058
Jonas Sicking changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11246
Jonas Sicking changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11094
Jonas Sicking changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11257
Summary: Should IDBCursor.update be able to create a new entry?
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: PC
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
P
41 matches
Mail list logo
