Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

Nikunj would like to move the Indexed Database API spec to Last Call Working Draft (LCWD): http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebSimpleDB/ If you have any comments, please send them to public-webapps@w3.org by February 2. Note the Process Document states the following regarding the significa

Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > Nikunj would like to move the Indexed Database API spec to Last Call > Working Draft (LCWD): > > http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebSimpleDB/ > > If you have any comments, please send them to public-webapps@w3.org by > February 2. > > Note th

Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

On Jan 19, 2010, at 3:05 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > Nikunj would like to move the Indexed Database API spec to Last Call Working > Draft (LCWD): > > http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebSimpleDB/ > > If you have any comments, please send th

Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

On Jan 19, 2010, at 3:39 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: On Jan 19, 2010, at 3:05 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Arthur Barstow > wrote: Nikunj would like to move the Indexed Database API spec to Last Call Working Draft (LCWD): http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebSimpl

Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

For what it's worth we are in the same situation at mozilla On Jan 19, 2010 3:40 PM, "Maciej Stachowiak" wrote: On Jan 19, 2010, at 3:05 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Arthur Barstow... We at Apple are also in reviewing the spec and would also like additional time to

RE: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

ack to the working group next Monday (25th Jan). From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonas Sicking Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 9:48 PM To: Maciej Stachowiak Cc: Arthur Barstow; public-webapps; Jeremy Orlow Subject: Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments f

Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 A few comments I've been meaning to suggest: * count on KeyRange - Previously I had asked if there would be a way to get a count of the number of objects within a given key range. The addition of the KeyRange interface seems to be a step towards that

Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Kris Zyp wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > A few comments I've been meaning to suggest: > > * count on KeyRange - Previously I had asked if there would be a way > to get a count of the number of objects within a given key range. The > a

Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

On Jan 27, 2010, at 1:46 PM, Kris Zyp wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 A few comments I've been meaning to suggest: * count on KeyRange - Previously I had asked if there would be a way to get a count of the number of objects within a given key range. The addition of the Ke

RE: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

A few comments inline marked with [PC]. From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Nikunj Mehta Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 11:37 PM To: Kris Zyp Cc: Arthur Barstow; public-webapps Subject: Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API

Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2/1/2010 8:17 PM, Pablo Castro wrote: > [snip] >> the existence of currentTransaction in the same class). > >> "beginTransaction" would capture semantics more accurately. b. >> ObjectStoreSync.delete: delete is a Javascript keyword, can we >> us

Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

Hi All, On Jan 19, 2010, at 7:50 AM, Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote: Nikunj would like to move the Indexed Database API spec to Last Call Working Draft (LCWD): http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebSimpleDB/ If you have any comments, please send them to public-webapps@w3.org by February 2.

Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

On Jan 19, 2010, at 3:39 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: On Jan 19, 2010, at 3:05 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Arthur Barstow > wrote: Nikunj would like to move the Indexed Database API spec to Last Call Working Draft (LCWD): http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebSimp

Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2/2/2010 12:48 PM, Kris Zyp wrote: > > > On 2/1/2010 8:17 PM, Pablo Castro wrote: >> [snip] > > > >>> the existence of currentTransaction in the same class). > > > >>> "beginTransaction" would capture semantics more accurately. > b. > >>> ObjectS

RE: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

>> 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 th

Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 6/10/2010 4:15 PM, Pablo Castro wrote: > >>> 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 >

RE: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

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 >

Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 1:54 AM, Pablo Castro wrote: > > > 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 6/10/20

RE: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

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 wrote: From: Kris Zyp [mailto:k...@sitepen.com

Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Pablo Castro wrote: > > 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 F

Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Pablo Castro wrote: > > > 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 Ca

Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

eeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline >> February 2 >> >> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 1:54 AM, Pablo Castro >> wrote: >> >> >> From: Kris Zyp [mailto:k...@sitepen.com] >> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 4:38 PM >> Subject: Re: Seeking pr

RE: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

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 >

Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Pablo Castro wrote: >>> We developed a similar trick where we can indicate in the IDL that >>> different names are used for scripted languages and for compiled languages. > >>> So all in all I believe this problem can be overcome. I prefer to focus on >>> making

Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Pablo Castro > wrote: > >>> We developed a similar trick where we can indicate in the IDL that > different names are used for scripted languages and for compiled languages. > > > >>> So all in all I believe

Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 6/15/2010 12:40 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Pablo Castro > mailto:pablo.cas...@microsoft.com>> > wrote: > >>> We developed a similar trick

Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

Hi, (brief background before jumping out of the blue: I'm working with Andrei and Jeremy with the IDB implementation..) I'd like to mention the IDBCursor::continue is also problematic, as afaict "continue" is a reserved keyword in JS? oh, "delete" seems to be reserved as well: https://developer.m

Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 6/15/2010 12:36 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Pablo Castro > wrote: We developed a similar trick where we can indicate in the IDL that different names are used for scripted languages and for compiled

Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

There seems to be agreement that delete() is acceptable. Could you file a bug? / Jonas On Monday, July 5, 2010, Kris Zyp wrote: > > > > > > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > > > On 6/15/2010 12:36 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:20 > PM, Pablo Castro

Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

Whomever adds delete/continue back to the spec needs to inline into the spec an explanation of why it's ok per ES5. Most (all) of us grew up pre ES5 and *believe* that they're truly reserved keywords and that what you're doing is invalid. So without inlining the explanation into the spec, you're

[IndexedDB] Promises (WAS: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2)

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Kris Zyp wrote: > > * Use promises for async interfaces - In server side JavaScript, most > projects are moving towards using promises for asynchronous interfaces > instead of trying to define the specific callback parameters for each > interface. I believe the ad

Re: [IndexedDB] Promises (WAS: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2)

On Feb 18, 2010, at 4: 31AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote > Very interesting. The general concept seems promising and fairly flexible. > You can easily code in a similar style to normal async/callback semantics, > but it seems like you have a lot more flexibility. I do have a few questions > though. >

Re: [IndexedDB] Promises (WAS: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2/18/2010 5:31 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Kris Zyp > wrote: > > * Use promises for async interfaces - In server side JavaScript, > most > projects are moving towards using prom

Re: [IndexedDB] Promises (WAS: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2)

Thanks for the pointers. I'm actually pretty sold on the general idea of promises, and my intuition is that there won't be a very big resource penalty for using an API like this rather than callbacks or what's currently specced. At the same time, it seems as though there isn't much of a standard

Re: [IndexedDB] Promises (WAS: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2)

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > Thanks for the pointers. I'm actually pretty sold on the general idea of > promises, and my intuition is that there won't be a very big resource > penalty for using an API like this rather than callbacks or what's currently > specced. At the

Re: [IndexedDB] Promises (WAS: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 3/1/2010 2:52 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > Thanks for the pointers. I'm actually pretty sold on the general > idea of promises, and my intuition is that there won't be a very > big resource penalty for using an API like this rather than > callbacks

Re: [IndexedDB] Promises (WAS: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2)

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Kris Zyp wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > > > On 3/1/2010 2:52 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > > Thanks for the pointers. I'm actually pretty sold on the general > > idea of promises, and my intuition is that there won't be a very > > big re

Re: [IndexedDB] Promises (WAS: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2)

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Kris Zyp wrote: > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> >> >> On 3/1/2010 2:52 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: >> > Thanks for the pointers. I'm actually pretty sold on the general >> > idea of p

Re: [IndexedDB] Promises (WAS: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2)

Erm... s/differed/deferred/g On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Kris Zyp wrote: >> >>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> >>> >>> On 3/1/2010 2:52 PM, Jeremy Or

Re: [IndexedDB] Promises (WAS: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 3/3/2010 4:01 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Kris Zyp > wrote: > [snip] > > > The promises would only have a > "then" method which would take in an > > > onsuccess and onerror callb

Re: [IndexedDB] Promises (WAS: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2)

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Kris Zyp wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > > > On 3/3/2010 4:01 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Kris Zyp > > wrote: > > [snip] > > > > > > The promises would only have a > >

Re: [IndexedDB] Promises (WAS: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2)

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Kris Zyp wrote: > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> >> >> On 3/3/2010 4:01 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: >> > On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Kris Zyp > > > wrote: >

Re: [IndexedDB] Promises (WAS: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2)

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 6:37 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > You are quite right! I misunderstood how this part of promises worked. > > Is there excitement about speccing promises in general? > Yes. The starting point for a lot of the commonjs promises work is Tyler's ref_send promise library, documen

Re: [IndexedDB] Promises (WAS: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 3/4/2010 10:35 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote: > On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 6:37 AM, Jeremy Orlow > wrote: > > You are quite right! I misunderstood how this part of promises > worked. > > Is there excitement about speccing pro

Re: [IndexedDB] Promises (WAS: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2)

On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:31 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Kris Zyp wrote: >> >> * Use promises for async interfaces - In server side JavaScript, most >> projects are moving towards using promises for asynchronous interfaces >> instead of trying to define the specific

Re: [IndexedDB] Promises (WAS: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2)

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Kris Zyp wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > > > On 3/4/2010 10:35 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 6:37 AM, Jeremy Orlow > > wrote: > > > > You are quite right! I misunderstood how this p

Re: [IndexedDB] Promises (WAS: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 3/4/2010 11:08 AM, Aaron Boodman wrote: > On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:31 AM, Jeremy Orlow > wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Kris Zyp >> wrote: >>> >>> * Use promises for async interfaces - In server side >>> JavaScript, most projects a

Re: [IndexedDB] Promises (WAS: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2)

On Mar 4, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Kris Zyp wrote: On 3/4/2010 11:08 AM, Aaron Boodman wrote: On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:31 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Kris Zyp wrote: * Use promises for async interfaces - In server side JavaScript, most projects are moving towards

Re: [IndexedDB] Promises (WAS: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2)

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote: > > On Mar 4, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Kris Zyp wrote: > > >> On 3/4/2010 11:08 AM, Aaron Boodman wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:31 AM, Jeremy Orlow >>> wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Kris Zyp wrote: > >

Re: [IndexedDB] Promises (WAS: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 3/4/2010 11:46 AM, Nikunj Mehta wrote: > > On Mar 4, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Kris Zyp wrote: > >> >> On 3/4/2010 11:08 AM, Aaron Boodman wrote: > [snip] >>> >>> * There is nothing preventing JS authors from implementing a >>> promise-style API on top

Re: [IndexedDB] Promises (WAS: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2)

On Mar 4, 2010, at 10:55 AM, Kris Zyp wrote: On 3/4/2010 11:46 AM, Nikunj Mehta wrote: > > On Mar 4, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Kris Zyp wrote: > >> >> On 3/4/2010 11:08 AM, Aaron Boodman wrote: > [snip] >>> >>> * There is nothing preventing JS authors from implementing a >>> promise-style API

Re: [IndexedDB] Promises (WAS: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2)

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote: > > On Mar 4, 2010, at 10:55 AM, Kris Zyp wrote: > > On 3/4/2010 11:46 AM, Nikunj Mehta wrote: >> > >> > On Mar 4, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Kris Zyp wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> On 3/4/2010 11:08 AM, Aaron Boodman wrote: >> > [snip] >> >>> >> >>> *

Re: [IndexedDB] Promises (WAS: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2)

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 4:54 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > For what it's worth, regardless of the answers to the above questions, I > think we should switch to a callback based model.  It's great to use events > when natural to do so, but this is a very unnatural use.  It provides > artificial limitati

Re: [IndexedDB] Promises (WAS: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2)

On 3/5/2010 4:54 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: For what it's worth, regardless of the answers to the above questions, I think we should switch to a callback based model. It's great to use events when natural to do so, but this is a very unnatural use. It provides artificial limitations (only one requ

Re: [IndexedDB] Promises (WAS: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2)

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 1:05 AM, Shawn Wilsher wrote: > On 3/5/2010 4:54 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > >> For what it's worth, regardless of the answers to the above questions, I >> think we should switch to a callback based model. It's great to use >> events when natural to do so, but this is a ver

Re: [IndexedDB] Promises (WAS: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 3/12/2010 3:17 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 1:05 AM, Shawn Wilsher > wrote: > > On 3/5/2010 4:54 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > > For what it's worth, regardless of the answers to the above

Re: [IndexedDB] Promises (WAS: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2)

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Kris Zyp wrote: > > Seems like there is a false dichotomy here. I don't think anyone has > suggested non-event based API. If the IndexedDB is going to have an > asynchronous interface, clearly the results of operations should be > made available through events (me

Re: [IndexedDB] Promises (WAS: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2)

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Kris Zyp wrote: > >> >> Seems like there is a false dichotomy here. I don't think anyone has >> suggested non-event based API. If the IndexedDB is going to have an >> asynchronous interface, clearly the resul

RE: [IndexedDB] Promises (WAS: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2)

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 7:26 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Kris Zyp wrote: >> I believe computer science has clearly >> observed the fragility of passing callbacks to the initial function >> since it conflates the