I’ve been maintaining an IDB wrapper using Promises for a few years now[1].
Some things I’ve learnt are:
· Sharing transactions are a pain, but can be beneficial
· Cursors would lead to a nicer implementation on generators
· Async looks like a nicer abstraction on top
·
Speaking from the perspective of an IDB library author Promisification would be
high on my list of wants as it was the primary driver behind my libraries
existence.
The next thing would be function expression filtering, again this is something
that my library attempts to solve
(https://github
gets
};
- You could also look at doing stuff like using array indexes to store
the full parent path which you can then query across
Anyway I might keep playing with my implementation to see how it turns out.
Aaron Powell
MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | FunnelWeb Team
Member
ted with.
My 2c on the matter anyway.
Aaron Powell
MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | FunnelWeb Team
Member<http://funnelweblog.com/>
http://apowell.me<http://apowell.me/> | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype:
aaron.l.powell | Github<http://github.com/aaronpowell/> |
BitBuck
x27;t modified. This
means that it's safe to assume that undefined is undefined when passed into the
IDB API (as all browsers supporting IDB already implement ES5).
Aaron Powell
MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | FunnelWeb Team
Member<http://funnelweblog.com/>
http://apowell.me&l
see with that is there are several shipped
implementations of the spec that this would break for (if I recall correctly
IE10 will raise a DataError on undefined but not null).
Aaron Powell
MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | FunnelWeb Team
Member<http://funnelweblog.com/>
htt
