Alexander Shraer 2012-09-04, 01:10
Flavio Junqueira 2012-09-04, 22:11
Alexander Shraer 2012-09-04, 23:34
Flavio Junqueira 2012-09-05, 11:24
Alexander Shraer 2012-09-05, 15:12
Flavio Junqueira 2012-09-06, 11:18
charles charles 2012-09-05, 00:32
FYI - it would also enable the partial getChildren() method
On Sep 4, 2012, at 5:32 PM, charles charles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with
> Alexander .
> So why no server return children list just with the order of their creation?
> 2012/9/5 Alexander Shraer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Thanks Flavio. But what about just storing the list of children on the
> server in the order of their creation ? Wouldn't this be consistent
> with the sequential id and also cheap ? or am I missing something
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Flavio Junqueira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sep 4, 2012, at 3:10 AM, Alexander Shraer wrote:
>>> I have 2 questions:
>>> - why was it decided not to guarantee any order on the list returned from
>>> getChildren, given that many use-cases require looking on the child with
>>> the smallest id ?
>>> Why not just keep this list in a sorted form on the server ?
>> There is some discussion about this here: