From: keean.schu...@googlemail.com [mailto:keean.schu...@googlemail.com] On
Behalf Of Keean Schupke
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 11:51 PM
On 1 June 2011 01:37, Pablo Castro pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: simetri...@gmail.com [mailto:simetri...@gmail.com
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 5:34 PM
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
We discussed evictable stores some time ago and captured it in bug 11350
[1], but I haven't seen further discussion
, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
We discussed evictable stores some time ago and captured it in bug
11350 [1], but I haven't seen further discussion on it and it hasn't
gone into the spec. I'm curious
-Original Message-
From: simetri...@gmail.com [mailto:simetri...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Aryeh
Gregor
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 10:05 AM
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 5:18 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Based on that, my conclusion is that we should go with what Pablo is
We discussed evictable stores some time ago and captured it in bug 11350 [1],
but I haven't seen further discussion on it and it hasn't gone into the spec.
I'm curious on where folks are with this? Should we move it to v2? Should we
just allow UAs to have their own policy around eviction (back
-Original Message-
From: simetri...@gmail.com [mailto:simetri...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Aryeh
Gregor
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 3:49 PM
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
No, that was poor wording on my part, I keep using locale
We've had quite a bit of debate on this but I don't think we've reached
closure. At this point I would be fine with either one of a) postpone to v2 and
agree that for now we'll just do binary collation everywhere or b) the last
form of the proposal sent around: extra collation argument
This came up today that I didn't remember having a conversation about it with
folks.
We currently have IDBDatabaseException with a some error codes as constants and
code/message properties. Looking at DOMException as defined in DOM Core [1], it
turns out that a) the pattern of the class is
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Keean Schupke
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 10:17 PM
Something like RelationalDB gives you the power of a relational-db with no
dependence on a specific implementation of SQL, so it would be compatible
From: jor...@google.com [mailto:jor...@google.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 11:36 AM
I can find a lot of stuff on collation, but not a lot about why it could not
be done in a library. Could you summerise the reasons why this needs to be
core functionality for
From: keean.schu...@googlemail.com [mailto:keean.schu...@googlemail.com] On
Behalf Of Keean Schupke
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 8:17 PM
On 18 March 2011 19:29, Pablo Castro pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
From: keean.schu...@googlemail.com [mailto:keean.schu...@googlemail.com] On
Behalf
.
On 18 March 2011 02:19, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
2011/3/17 Pablo Castro pablo.cas...@microsoft.com:
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 1:11 PM
All in all, is there anything preventing adding the API Pablo suggests
in this thread
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 1:57 PM
However there is another problem to consider here. Can switching
collation on a objectStore or a unique index can affect its validity?
I.e. if you switch from a case sensitive to a case insensitive
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 3:08 PM
Filed: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12310
I'm not sure if this is a lot more valuable than just creating an index over
whatever index
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Keean Schupke
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 3:03 PM
No objections here.
Keean.
On 8 March 2011 21:14, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Jeremy Orlow
From: jungs...@google.com [mailto:jungs...@google.com] On Behalf Of Jungshik
Shin (???, ???)
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 2:08 PM
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 2:34 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.net wrote:
* Pablo Castro wrote:
We discussed international language support last time
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 11:51 AM
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:02 AM, ben turner bent.mozi...@gmail.com wrote:
We discussed international language support last time at the TPAC and I said
I'd propose spec text for it. Please find the patch below, the changes mirror
exactly the proposal described in the bug we have for tracking this:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9903
btw - the bug is
From: jor...@google.com [mailto:jor...@google.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2011 12:43 PM
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Pablo Castro pablo.cas...@microsoft.com
wrote:
From: jor...@google.com [mailto:jor...@google.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
Sent: Tuesday
(sorry for my random out-of-timing previous email on this thread. please see
below for an actually up to date reply)
-Original Message-
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 3:31 PM
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
(back!)
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 6:47 PM
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
From: jor...@google.com [mailto:jor...@google.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 2:35 AM
In another thread (in the last couple days) we actually decided to remove
timeouts from normal transactions since they can be implemented as a
setTimeout+abort.
But I agree
I was going to file a bug on this but wanted to make sure I'm not missing
something first.
All the factory methods for ranges (e.g. bound, lowerBound, etc.) are in the
IDBKeyRangeConstructors interface now, but I don't see the interface referenced
anywhere. Who implements this interface, the
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 3:21 AM
I believe the instance of WorkerUtils is much like window in a page. I.e.
you put stuff on there that you want in the global scope. Thus I'm
Regular transactions take a timeout parameter when started, which ensures that
we eventually make progress one way or the other if there's an un-cooperating
script that won't let go of an object store or something like that.
I'm not sure if we discussed this before, it seems that we need to add
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 5:03 AM
I noticed that QUOTA_ERR is commented out. I can't remember when or why and
the blame history is a bit mangled. Does anyone else? In Chromium we
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Jonas Sicking
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 1:42 PM
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 7:32 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
Any more thoughts on this?
I don't feel strongly one way or another.
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 7:27 AM
In addition to createObjectStore, I also intend to convert the following
over:
IDBObjectStore.createIndex
IDBObjectStore.openCursor
-Original Message-
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of bugzi...@jessica.w3.org
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 4:16 AM
Just looking at this list, I guess I'm leaning towards _not_ limiting the
maximum key size and instead pushing it
From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 1:50 PM
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org]
On Behalf Of bugzi...@jessica.w3.org
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 2:08 PM
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org
- transactions scopes (dynamic support)
- synchronous api
Thanks
-pablo
-Original Message-
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Pablo Castro
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 10:39 PM
To: Jeremy Orlow; Jonas Sicking
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
A few other items to add to the list to discuss tomorrow:
- Blobs support: have we discussed explicitly how things work when an object
has a blob (file, array, etc.) as one of its properties?
- Close on collation and international support
- How do applications request that they need more
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
The spec for the asynchronous put and add methods in object store as
well as update in cursors don't explicitly state when clones
; Pablo Castro;
public-webapps; Arun Ranganathan
Subject: Re: Seeking agenda items for WebApps' Nov 1-2 f2f meeting
I added the following slots for November 2:
[[
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/TPAC2010#Tuesday.2C_November_2
13:30-15:00: Indexed DB
15:30-16:30: Indexed DB
16:30-18:00: File
-Original Message-
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of ben turner
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 8:19 AM
Yes, let's have it tied to the instance on which setVersion() was called.
As Shawn pointed out that is consistent with the
I agree with Jonas on this. I think accessing the index values is an important
feature (in addition to joins you can imagine add an extra property or two to
the index key* to create a covering index and avoid fetching the object in a
perf-critical path).
That said, to me it's just about
From: Jungshik Shin (신정식, 申政湜) [mailto:jungs...@google.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 10:34 PM
As for the locale identifiers, my understanding is that Windows APIs (newer
'name-based' locale APIs) more or less follows BCP 47.
Picking this back up from this August thread. I went
: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 10:53 AM
To: Jeremy Orlow
Cc: Pablo Castro; art.bars...@nokia.com; public-webapps
Subject: Re: Seeking agenda items for WebApps' Nov 1-2 f2f meeting
I'm not 100% sure that I'll make TPAC this year, but if I do, I likely
won't make monday. So a tuesday schedule would fit me
-Original Message-
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Arthur Barstow
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 4:32 AM
The WebApps WG will meet face-to-face November 1-2 as part of the W3C's
2010 TPAC meeting week [TPAC].
I created a stub
In the context of transactions, readers using READ_ONLY and writers using
READ_WRITE may block each other when starting transactions, at least for cases
where the underlying implementation uses locking for isolation. Since we allow
multiple readers and they can start while other readers were
defaults to to the
unicode collation algorithm and all the locale's are happy.
-Mikeal
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Pablo Castro pablo.cas...@microsoft.com
wrote:
We had some discussions about collation algorithms and such in the past, but
I don't think we have settled on the language
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:59 AM
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 3:41 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
We currently have two read-only transaction modes, READ_ONLY and SNAPSHOT_READ.
As we map this out to implementation we ran into various questions that made me
wonder whether we have the right set of modes.
It seems that READ_ONLY and SNAPSHOT_READ are identical in every aspect
(point-in-time
From: jor...@google.com [mailto:jor...@google.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 2:18 AM
I think we should first break down the use cases and look at how many of
them just need _a_ sort order, how many of them a per-database sort order is
ok, and how many of them
From: jor...@google.com [mailto:jor...@google.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:36 AM
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
We had some
We support this as well.
-pablo
-Original Message-
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Jonas Sicking
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 8:06 AM
To: Jeremy Orlow
Cc: art.bars...@nokia.com; public-webapps
Subject: Re: CfC: to publish new WD
From: jor...@google.com [mailto:jor...@google.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 2:34 AM
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Pablo Castro pablo.cas...@microsoft.com
wrote:
-Original Message
-Original Message-
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Jonas Sicking
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 2:12 PM
I suggest we make removeDatabase (or whatever we call it) schedule a
database to be deleted, but doesn't actually delete
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 2:56 AM
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Shawn Wilsher sdwi...@mozilla.com wrote:
Hey
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Jonas Sicking
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 12:21 PM
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 12:09 PM, ben turner bent.mozi...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi folks,
Currently there are only two ways to clear an object store of
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 11:27 AM
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On Jul 16, 2010, at 5:41 AM, Pablo Castro wrote:
From: jor...@google.com [mailto:jor...@google.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 5:18 PM
The author doesn't explicitly specify which rows to lock. All rows that
you see become locked (e.g. through get(), put(), scanning with a
cursor, etc.). If you start the transaction as read-only then
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 5:25 PM
Regarding deadlocks, that's right, the implementation cannot determine if
a deadlock will occur ahead of time. Sophisticated implementations could
track locks/owners and do deadlock detection, although a
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 5:30 PM
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 5:18 PM
The author doesn't explicitly
From: jor...@google.com [mailto:jor...@google.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 2:04 AM
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 2:44 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Pablo Castro pablo.cas...@microsoft.com
wrote:
If it's accurate
From: jor...@google.com [mailto:jor...@google.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 8:41 AM
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 3:09 PM,
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 11:59 AM
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
From: jor...@google.com [mailto:jor...@google.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy
Orlow
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 2:04 AM
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 12:07 AM
Dynamic transactions:
I see that most folks would like to see these going away. While I like the
predictability and simplifications that we're able to make by using static
scopes for transactions, I
From: jor...@google.com [mailto:jor...@google.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 12:10 AM
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 3:52 AM, Pablo Castro pablo.cas...@microsoft.com
wrote:
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Andrei
From my perspective cancelling is not something that happens that often, and
when it happens it's probably ok to cancel the whole transaction. If we can
spec abort() in the transaction object such that it try to cancel all pending
operations and then rollback any work that has been done so far,
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 5:43 PM
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 12:07 AM
I think what I'm struggling
andr...@google.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 2:09 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com
wrote:
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 1:14 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Pablo Castro
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Andrei Popescu
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 5:23 AM
Sorry I disappeared for a while. Catching up with this discussion was an
interesting exercise...there is no particular message in this thread I can
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Jonas Sicking
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 4:00 PM
We ran into an complicated issue while implementing IndexedDB. In short,
what should happen if an object store is modified while a cursor is
iterating
+1 on composite keys in general. The alternative to the proposal below would be
to have the actual key path specification include multiple members (e.g.
db.createObjectStore(foo, [a, b])). I like the proposal below as well, I
just wonder if having the key path specification (that's external to
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 3:20 PM
So there is a real likelyhood of a browser implementation that
will predate it's associated JS engine's upgrade to ES5?
Feeling a concern isn't really much of technical argument on
it's own, and
From: jor...@google.com [mailto:jor...@google.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 3:20 AM
Subject: Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline
February 2
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 1:54 AM, Pablo Castro pablo.cas...@microsoft.com
wrote:
From: Kris Zyp
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Kris Zyp
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline
February 2
I see that in the trunk version of the spec [1] that delete() was
From: Kris Zyp [mailto:k...@sitepen.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline
February 2
On 6/10/2010 4:15 PM, Pablo Castro wrote:
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org
[mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org
From: Jeremy Orlow
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 6:54 AM
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 3:58 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 11:42 PM, bugzi...@jessica.w3.org wrote:
(still catching up on the rest of the long thread of API changes, will get back
to that a bit later)
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 3:34 PM
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Shawn Wilsher
Sorry for having disappeared for a while, odata was keeping me busy. I agree
with all the clarifications listed in this thread that are required, so I won't
redundantly mark each with same here, but I have a few comments on one or two
of them below.
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Jeremy
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 7:26 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Kris Zyp k...@sitepen.com wrote:
I believe computer science has clearly
observed the fragility of passing callbacks to the initial
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 1:30 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@google.com wrote:
1. Keys and sorting
a. 3.1.1: it would seem that having also date/time values as keys
would be important and it's a common sorting criteria (e.g. as part of a
composite primary key or in general as an
function a promise would need to
provide.
Thanks for the pointer. I will look in to this as even Pablo had related
requirements.
[1] http://wiki.commonjs.org/wiki/Promises
and a comment on this:
On 1/26/2010 1:47 PM, Pablo Castro wrote:
11. API Names
a. transaction is really non
These are notes that we collected both from reviewing the spec (editor's draft
up to Jan 24th) and from a prototype implementation that we are working on. I
didn't realize we had this many notes, otherwise I would have been sending
intermediate notes early. Will do so next round.
1. Keys and
Hi Chris,
-Original Message-
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-
requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Chris Anderson
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 11:14 AM
To: public-webapps WG
Subject: IndexedDB and MVCC
Hi,
I've been reading the new IndexedDB spec as
My apologies for my late reply, I've been out for a while.
-Original Message-
From: Nikunj R. Mehta [mailto:nikunj.me...@oracle.com]
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 10:47 AM
To: public-webapps@w3.org WG
Cc: Pablo Castro
Subject: Re: [WebSimpleDB] Allowing schema operations anywhere
Whenever we take a callback that's to be called for each item in a set (e.g.
with a .forEach(callback) pattern), we need a way to indicate the system
whether it's ok to move to the next row and invoke the next callback or not.
Otherwise, in scenarios where the callback itself performs an
We are finding a number of reasons for wanting to create tables on the fly, and
without bumping up the database version. A few examples:
- Packaged components that create side tables to maintain its own state
- Query processors often need to spill to disk during query execution. For
example,
We're busy creating experimental implementations of WebSimpleDB to both
understand what it takes to implement and also to see what the developer
experience looks like.
As we started to write application code against the API (particularly the
async one) the first thing that popped is the fact
We've been looking at the web database space here at Microsoft, trying to
understand scenarios and requirements. After assessing what was out there we
are forming an opinion around this. I wanted to write to this group to share
how we think about the space, what principles we try to apply, and
83 matches
Mail list logo
