On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Pablo Castro
wrote:
> (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
>
(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 wrote:
> On Mon, Fe
>> 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
>> wrote:
>>
>> From: jor...@google.com [mailto:jor...@google.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
>> Sent: Tuesday, December
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>> > On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Jeremy Orlow
>> >> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Jeremy Orlow
> wrote:
> >> > On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Shawn Wilsher
> >> > wro
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>> > On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Shawn Wilsher
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 2/6/2011 12:42 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>> >>>
>> >
On 2/7/2011 12:32 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Is that a safe assumption to design around? The API might later be bound to
other languages fortunate enough not to be stuck in UTF-16.
As I recall, we've already made design decisions based on the fact that
the primary consumer of this API is going to
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 2:38 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> One problem with putting a limit is that it basically forces
> implementations to use a specific encoding, or pay a hefty price. For
> example if we choose a 64K limit, is that of UTF8 data or of UTF16
> data? If it is of UTF8 data, and the i
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Shawn Wilsher
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2/6/2011 12:42 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> >>>
> >>> My current thinking is that we should have some relatively large
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
>>
>> On 2/6/2011 12:42 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>>>
>>> My current thinking is that we should have some relatively large
>>> limitmaybe on the order of 64k? It seems like it'd be very d
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
> On 2/6/2011 12:42 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>
>> My current thinking is that we should have some relatively large
>> limitmaybe on the order of 64k? It seems like it'd be very difficult
>> to
>> hit such a limit with any sort of legitimate
On 2/6/2011 12:42 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
My current thinking is that we should have some relatively large
limitmaybe on the order of 64k? It seems like it'd be very difficult to
hit such a limit with any sort of legitimate use case, and the chances of
some subtle data-dependent error would
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Pablo Castro wrote:
>
> From: jor...@google.com [mailto:jor...@google.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy
> Orlow
> Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 4:23 PM
>
> >> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Pablo Castro <
> pablo.cas...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: public-web
From: jor...@google.com [mailto:jor...@google.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 4:23 PM
>> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Pablo Castro
>> wrote:
>>
>> From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org]
>> On Behalf Of Jonas Sicking
>> Se
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Pablo Castro
wrote:
>
> 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
> wrote:
> >> > Any more thoughts on thi
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 wrote:
>> > Any more thoughts on this?
>>
>> I don't feel strongly one way or another. Implementation wi
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 7:32 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> Any more thoughts on this?
I don't feel strongly one way or another. Implementation wise I don't
really understand why implementations couldn't use keys of unlimited
size. I wouldn't imagine implementations would want to use fixed-size
alloca
Any more thoughts on this?
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> Something working (but with degraded performance) is better than not
> working at all. Especially when keys will often come from user data/input
> and thus simple web apps will likely not handle the exceptions la
Something working (but with degraded performance) is better than not working
at all. Especially when keys will often come from user data/input and thus
simple web apps will likely not handle the exceptions large keys might
generate. Throughout the rest of IndexedDB, we've taken quite a bit of car
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 8:13 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>The question is in part where the limit for "ridiculous" goes. 1K keys
>>are sort of ridiculous, though I'm sure it happens.
>
> By "ridiculous" I mean that common systems would run out of memory. That
> is differe
Just a thought, because the spec does not limit the key size, does not mean
the implementation has to index on huge keys. For example you may choose to
index only the first 1000 characters of string keys, and then link the
values of key collisions together in the storage node. This way things are
k
* Jonas Sicking wrote:
>The question is in part where the limit for "ridiculous" goes. 1K keys
>are sort of ridiculous, though I'm sure it happens.
By "ridiculous" I mean that common systems would run out of memory. That
is different among systems, and I would expect developers to consider it
up t
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Pablo Castro wrote:
Just looking at this list, I guess I'm leaning towards _not_ limiting the
maximum key size and instead pushing it onto implementations to do the hard
work here. If so, we should probably have some norm
* Pablo Castro wrote:
>>> Just looking at this list, I guess I'm leaning towards _not_ limiting the
>>> maximum key size and instead pushing it onto implementations to do the hard
>>> work here. If so, we should probably have some normative text about how
>>> bigger
>>> keys will probably not be
-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
25 matches
Mail list logo
