-
|
I noticed that the IndexedDB persistence adapter is implemented in such a way, so that every collection is stored in it's own database, with a single store called Just wanted to ask - what is (are) the reason(s) for this architectural decision? Why not create a single DB and have all the collections as separate stores in that DB? I am new to IndexedDB and I might be missing the obvious, but I am still curious what is behind this decision. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Replies: 1 comment
-
|
I'm not sure about the specific reason I had. I think it was easier to handle from the UX side. Creating stores in IndexedDB requires a migration. That would mean that the IndexedDB needs to be updated whenever a new collection was added. But I agree, that this is not optimal and I'll change this in v2. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
I'm not sure about the specific reason I had. I think it was easier to handle from the UX side. Creating stores in IndexedDB requires a migration. That would mean that the IndexedDB needs to be updated whenever a new collection was added.
New databases however, can be added any time.
But I agree, that this is not optimal and I'll change this in v2.