On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 03:44:57 +0100, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Awesome, I've updated the spec to hopefully be clear on this.
I've been following along and silently +1'ing the outcomes of the
different emails, just without the added email noise which wasn't really
required from my side as I had n
Awesome, I've updated the spec to hopefully be clear on this.
/ Jonas
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> I was originally referring to the second scenario. However, I agree with you
> that we shouldn't support this scenario. I just wanted to confirm this.
> Thanks,
>
> I
The approach you described makes sense to us.
Thanks for clarifying.
Israel
On Saturday, March 03, 2012 5:07 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> > We would like some clarification on this scenario. When you say that
> > FF will result on 1 index en
I was originally referring to the second scenario. However, I agree with you
that we shouldn't support this scenario. I just wanted to confirm this.
Thanks,
Israel
On Saturday, March 03, 2012 6:24 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> > There seems
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> There seems to be some cases where it might be useful to be able to get a
> count of all the duplicates contained in a multiEntry index. Do you guys
> see this as an important scenario?
Not exactly sure what you mean here.
Do you mean dupl
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> We would like some clarification on this scenario. When you say that FF
> will result on 1 index entry for each index that implies that the duplicates
> are automatically removed. That implies that the multiEntry flag doesn’t
> take unique
We would like some clarification on this scenario. When you say that FF will
result on 1 index entry for each index that implies that the duplicates are
automatically removed. That implies that the multiEntry flag doesn't take
unique into consideration. Is this correct?
There seems to be som
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> What should we do if an array which is used for a multiEntry index
> contains multiple entries with the same value? I.e. consider the
> following code:
>
> store = db.createObjectStore("store");
> index1 = store.createIndex("index
