Re: [Bug 10430] New: [IndexedDB] We need to make it more clear IDBRequests can be reused and spec readyState's behavior

2010-11-04 Thread Ian Hickson
On Thu, 4 Nov 2010, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > > Also, do any of those examples have just 2 states? > > No. Early drafts of several of them just had two states, actually, but in each case we ended up adding more later. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL

Re: IndexedDB TPAC agenda

2010-11-04 Thread Nikunj Mehta
I had a major power outage on Nov 2 and could not join the meeting after the break between IndexedDB and File API. Also, I didn't really keep up with the discussions on DataCache API at TPAC. My apologies for that. Nikunj On Nov 4, 2010, at 7:38 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > Just to close the loop

Re: [Bug 10430] New: [IndexedDB] We need to make it more clear IDBRequests can be reused and spec readyState's behavior

2010-11-04 Thread Jonas Sicking
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: >> > On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Shawn Wilsher >> >> wrote:

Re: IndexedDB TPAC agenda

2010-11-04 Thread Jeremy Orlow
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote: > > Propose: > > can implementors provide an update on their implementation status/plans? > > I can answer this for Firefox. We're tracking the spec fairly closely, > though not all changes

Re: [Bug 10430] New: [IndexedDB] We need to make it more clear IDBRequests can be reused and spec readyState's behavior

2010-11-04 Thread Jeremy Orlow
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Shawn Wilsher > wrote: > >> > On 11/1/2010 5:29 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > >> >> > >> >>

Re: IndexedDB TPAC agenda

2010-11-04 Thread Jonas Sicking
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote: > Propose: > can implementors provide an update on their implementation status/plans? I can answer this for Firefox. We're tracking the spec fairly closely, though not all changes have yet landed but are stuck waiting for review from me. There

Re: [Bug 10430] New: [IndexedDB] We need to make it more clear IDBRequests can be reused and spec readyState's behavior

2010-11-04 Thread Jonas Sicking
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Shawn Wilsher wrote: >> > On 11/1/2010 5:29 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: >> >> >> >>  If not, I think we should avoid adding surface area for something we

Re: IndexedDB TPAC agenda

2010-11-04 Thread Jeremy Orlow
Just to close the loop on this: Jonas, Pablo, Andrei, and I talked about all of these items yesterday for several hours. Our plan is to either post bugs or emails to the list by next Wednesday regarding everything that was discussed so that we can continue the discussions there. J On Tue, Nov 2,

Re: [Bug 10430] New: [IndexedDB] We need to make it more clear IDBRequests can be reused and spec readyState's behavior

2010-11-04 Thread Jeremy Orlow
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Shawn Wilsher wrote: > > On 11/1/2010 5:29 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > >> > >> If not, I think we should avoid adding surface area for something we > >> don't > >> really understand very well. > > > > I agree

Re: [Bug 10430] New: [IndexedDB] We need to make it more clear IDBRequests can be reused and spec readyState's behavior

2010-11-04 Thread Jonas Sicking
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Shawn Wilsher wrote: > On 11/1/2010 5:29 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: >> >>  If not, I think we should avoid adding surface area for something we >> don't >> really understand very well. > > I agree with this.  Less is better at this point I think (when appropriate, > of