What is the minimum that can be in IDB? I am guessing the following:
1. Sorted key-opaque value transactional store
2. Lookup of keys by values (or parts thereof)
#1 is essential.
#2 is unavoidable because you would want to efficiently manipulate values by
values as opposed to values by key.
I
Hi Pablo,
I will reassign this bug to Eliott.
Nikunj
On Feb 17, 2011, at 6:38 PM, Pablo Castro wrote:
btw - the bug is assigned to Nikunj right now but I think that's just because
of an editing glitch. Nikunj please let me know if you were working on it,
otherwise I'll just submit the
I am glad to see this after having brought this up last year at TPAC. I support
this.
Nikunj
On Nov 6, 2010, at 3:09 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010, Arthur Barstow wrote:
[...] suggested the spec be published as a Working Group Note and this
is Call for Consensus to do.
I
/compound-keys/etc.
J
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
Propose:
can implementors provide an update on their implementation status/plans?
Nikunj
On Nov 2, 2010, at 3:58 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
Great list!
I propose we start
Propose:
can implementors provide an update on their implementation status/plans?
Nikunj
On Nov 2, 2010, at 3:58 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
Great list!
I propose we start with the various keys issues (I think we can make a lot of
progress quickly and it's somewhat fresh on our minds), go to
On Aug 24, 2010, at 10:30 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
Also, the spec still has [NoInterfaceObject] for a lot of the interfaces.
I believe Nikunj did this by accident and was supposed to revert, but I guess
he didn't? I should file a bug to get these removed, right?
Andrei made changes in
On Aug 12, 2010, at 2:22 PM, Pablo Castro 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
On Jul 22, 2010, at 11:27 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
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 Orlow
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 8:41
On Jul 16, 2010, at 5:41 AM, Pablo Castro wrote:
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
On Jul 16, 2010, at 5:47 AM, Pablo Castro wrote:
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
We would not make dynamic transactions be the default since they would produce
more concurrency than static scoped transactions, correct?
On Jul 7, 2010, at 12:57 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Unless we're planning on making all
transactions dynamic (I hope not), locks have to be grabbed when the
On Jul 7, 2010, at 12:57 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
2. Provide a catalog object that can be used to atomically add/remove
object stores and indexes as well as modify version.
It seems to me that a catalog object doesn't really provide any
functionality over the proposal in bug 10052? The
Andrei,
Pejorative remarks about normative text don't help anyone. If you think that
the spec text is not clear or that you are unable to interpret it, please say
so. The text about dynamic scope has been around for long enough and no one so
far mentioned a problem with them.
Nikunj
On Jul 7,
On Jul 8, 2010, at 12:38 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010
On Jul 8, 2010, at 4:17 AM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
On 7/6/2010 6:31 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
To begin with, 10052 shuts down the users of the database completely when
only one is changing its structure, i.e., adding or removing an object
store. How can we make it less draconian? Secondly, I
On Jul 8, 2010, at 12:38 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
One of our main points was to make getting objectStore
objects a synchronous operation as to avoid having to nest multiple
levels of asynchronous calls. Compare
var req = db.openObjectStore(foo, trans);
req.onerror = errorHandler;
On Jul 10, 2010, at 12:29 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
We would not make dynamic transactions be the default since they would
produce more concurrency than static scoped transactions, correct?
On Jul 7, 2010, at 12:57 PM
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:57 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
Hi folks,
There are several unimplemented proposals on strengthening and
expanding IndexedDB. The reason I have not implemented them yet
Hi Jeremy,
I have been able to push my changes (after more Mercurial server problems) just
now. I reopened 9790 because Andrei's commit made IDBCursor and IDBObjectStore
constants unavailable from the global object. After all this, you should be
able to do the following for your need below:
On Jun 22, 2010, at 12:44 AM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
(specifically answering out of context)
On May 17, 2010, at 6:15 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
9. IDBKeyRanges are created using functions on IndexedDatabaseRequest
I would like to confirm the requirements for posting list and inverted index
support in IndexedDB. To that extent, here is a short list ordered by
importance. Please let me know if I have missed anything important.
1. Store sorted runs of terms and their occurrences in documents along with a
Would be useful to bear in mind the semantics of the two methods:
1. If storing a record in an index that allows multiple values for a single key,
a. add is going to store an extra record for an existing key, if it exists.
b. put is also going to store a new record for the existing key, if it
wrote:
Could someone provide more context here. I don't understand any of
what is being talked about. Is this a proposal for a new feature?
/ Jonas
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
I would like to confirm the requirements for posting list and inverted
messing with the cursor has an update method that I find highly useful
and efficient.
-Mikeal
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On Jun 16, 2010, at 9:58 AM, Shawn Wilsher wrote
Hi all,
I am trying to provide access to constants defined in IndexedDB interfaces. For
example:
interface IDBRequest : EventTarget {
void abort ();
const unsigned short INITIAL = 0;
const unsigned short LOADING = 1;
const unsigned short DONE = 2;
readonly attribute unsigned
(specifically answering out of context)
On May 17, 2010, at 6:15 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
9. IDBKeyRanges are created using functions on IndexedDatabaseRequest.
We couldn't figure out how the old API allowed you to create a range
object without first having a range object.
Hey Jonas,
What
Also, we need to redirect from the CVS version of the draft to the Mercurial
version, since we are going to be maintaining only the Mercurial version. This
version can be found at:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndexedDB/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
Nikunj
On Jun 10, 2010, at 10:29 AM, Jonas Sicking
Art asked for a status update on the IndexedDB spec. Here's my summary of the
status:
1. Last published working draft: Jan 5, 2010
2. Bugzilla status: 15 issues logged
3. Editors: Nikunj Mehta (Invited Expert), Eliot Graf (Microsoft)
4. Spec document management: Currently W3C CVS, also using
On Jun 7, 2010, at 12:22 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
3. Editors: Nikunj Mehta (Invited Expert), Eliot Graf (Microsoft)
4. Spec document management: Currently W3C CVS, also using W3C's Distributed
CVS (Mercurial) system
The current spec is really far out of date at this point. There are 15
We have started using Mercurial for IndexedDB. I would like to propose moving
the IndexedDB spec's location to that repository in order to enable multiple
editors to work on it. Does anyone see a problem with that?
Also, we will need help to host the editor's draft from mercurial instead of
On Jun 7, 2010, at 1:32 PM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On Jun 7, 2010, at 12:22 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
3. Editors: Nikunj Mehta (Invited Expert), Eliot Graf (Microsoft)
4. Spec document management: Currently W3C CVS
sdwi...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 5/13/2010 7:51 AM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
If you search archives you will find a discussion on versioning and that
we gave up on doing version management inside the browser and instead leave
it to applications to do their own versioning and upgrades.
Right, I'm
On May 18, 2010, at 12:50 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
If the use case here is to avoid tripping up on schema changes, then:
1. Lock the database
On May 18, 2010, at 12:46 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
If the use case here is to avoid tripping up on schema changes, then:
1. Lock the database when starting a database connection. This is the
non-sharing access mode
transactions, and app-managed versioning of
schema
# Allow DDL like operations in a special transaction at any time
We went with the middle option after some amount of analysis and discussion.
On May 13, 2010, at 10:25 AM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
On 5/13/2010 7:51 AM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
If you search
On May 18, 2010, at 1:36 PM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
On 5/18/2010 1:02 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
I won't talk about tabs and such. Let's make clarification questions be
related to spec text.
Simply replace any instance of tabs with database connections.
A database connection that locks
On May 18, 2010, at 2:33 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 9:36 PM, Shawn Wilsher sdwi...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 5/18/2010 1:02 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
A database connection that locks the entire database cannot be opened if
there is another database connection that locks
On May 18, 2010, at 2:48 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On May 18, 2010, at 12:46 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
If the use case here is to avoid
If you search archives you will find a discussion on versioning and that we
gave up on doing version management inside the browser and instead leave it to
applications to do their own versioning and upgrades.
Nikunj
On May 12, 2010, at 11:02 AM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
Hey all,
A recent
On May 4, 2010, at 7:17 PM, Pablo Castro wrote:
The interaction between transactions and objects that allow multiple
operations is giving us trouble. I need to elaborate a little to explain the
problem.
You can perform operations in IndexedDB with or without an explicitly started
On May 5, 2010, at 1:56 PM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
On 5/5/2010 1:09 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
I'd also worry that if creating the transaction were completely transparent
to the user that they might not think to close it either. (I'm mainly
thinking about copy-and-paste coders here.)
I should
Dumi,
I am not sure what the API expectations are for different levels of durability
of storage APIs. Is it:
1. Options passed to individual APIs selecting durability level
2. Separate API calls for different durability level
3. Allocations occurring through markup requiring user actions which
On Apr 21, 2010, at 1:03 PM, Michael Nordman wrote:
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Mike Clement mi...@google.com wrote:
FWIW, the transient vs. permanent storage support is exactly why I
eagerly await an implementation of EricU's Filesystem API. Being able to
guarantee that the UA
On Apr 21, 2010, at 5:11 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:44 PM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On Mar 15, 2010, at 10:45 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Nikunj
On Apr 21, 2010, at 5:11 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:44 PM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On Mar 15, 2010, at 10:45 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Nikunj
On Mar 15, 2010, at 10:45 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On Feb 18, 2010, at 9:08 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
2) In the spec, dynamic transactions
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 jor...@google.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Kris Zyp k...@sitepen.com
wrote:
* Use promises for async interfaces - In server side
JavaScript,
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 on top
On Feb 28, 2010, at 3:24 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
Another nit: as far as I can tell, all of the common parts of the
interfaces are named Foo, the synchronous API portion is FooSync,
and the async API portion is FooRequest. This is true except for
IndexedDatabase where the sync version is
Hi all,
Sorry to be slow in responding to all the feedback on Indexed DB. As
you know, this is now my unpaid work and I am trying my best to
respond to comments before the weekend is up.
But this is good. Please keep the feedback and early implementation
experience coming.
On Jan 30,
On Jan 31, 2010, at 11:33 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
d. The current draft fails to format in IE, the script that
comes with the page fails with an error
I am aware of this and am working with the maintainer of ReSpec.js
tool to publish an editor's draft that displays in IE. Would
Hi Pablo,
Great work and excellent feedback. I will take a little bit of time to
digest and respond.
Nikunj
On Jan 26, 2010, at 12:47 PM, Pablo Castro wrote:
These are notes that we collected both from reviewing the spec
(editor's draft up to Jan 24th) and from a prototype implementation
:
ObjectStore
KeyRange
Environment
DatabaseError
At which point, there's not too many interfaces left without the IDB
prefix (mostly synchronous variants of these interfaces) so maybe we
should just prefix everything?
Thanks!
J
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com
wrote
On Jan 18, 2010, at 3:56 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Nikunj,
On Jan 16, 2010, at 7:07 PM, ext Nikunj Mehta wrote:
I would like to move the IndexedDB spec to Last Call at the earliest
possible. Please provide feedback that can help us prepare a strong
draft for LCWD.
Do you want a fixed
Hello all,
I have joined this WG as an invited expert and plan to continue to
work on the two specs I am editing and move them forward. I look
forward to work with you all to make progress on these two and the
other deliverables of this WG.
I would like to move the IndexedDB spec to Last
on these topics and continue to follow their progress.
It was really wonderful to know all the people in this WG both over
email and in face to face meetings. I wish the best to the WG in its
mission.
Nikunj Mehta
http://blog.o-micron.com
Joseph Pecoraro wrote:
I have changed to using the new method "immediate" and that also removed this call.
Immediate looks useful. The specification for immediate is:
[[
When this method is called, the user agent creates a new cache transaction, and performs the steps to
, especially one that does not require
all or nothing semantics for data versioning; BITSY has no protocol
limitations.
Nikunj Mehta
http://o-micron.blogspot.com
On Apr 27, 2009, at 2:19 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 00:52:22 +0200, Nikunj Mehta nikunj.me...@oracle.com
://www.w3.org/2009/04/webapps-charter
[2] http://www.w3.org/mid/3e428ec7-1960-4ece-b403-827ba47fe...@nokia.comian
Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
Here's what Oracle would like to see in the abstract:
This specification defines two APIs for persistent data storage in
Web
On Apr 23, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Doug Schepers wrote:
Jonas and others seem to support broadening the scope, and I've also
been reading various posts in the blogosphere that also question
whether
SQL is the right choice (I see a lot of support for
On Apr 23, 2009, at 1:47 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:18:40 +0200, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
The draft got published today, so it's too late to change the high-
profile version of the spec. Rather than add this message, I'd like
to just come
to some sort of
On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:34 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
Nikunj Mehta wrote (on 4/24/09 2:24 AM):
[snip]
Preferably, the current Section 4
would be renamed as
[[
Structured Storage
]]
with the following wording in it:
[[
The working group is currently debating whether SQL is the right
abstraction
On Apr 23, 2009, at 2:13 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
Hi, Ian-
Ian Hickson wrote (on 4/23/09 4:18 PM):
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Doug Schepers wrote:
Jonas and others seem to support broadening the scope, and I've also
been reading various posts in the blogosphere that also question
whether
SQL
On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:51 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
On Apr 23, 2009, at 1:47 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:18:40 +0200, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch
wrote:
The draft got published today, so it's too late to change the
high-profile
On Apr 17, 2009, at 2:39 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Nikunj Mehta
nikunj.me...@oracle.com wrote:
On Apr 11, 2009, at 12:39 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:55 PM, Nikunj Mehta nikunj.me...@oracle.com
wrote:
On Apr 10, 2009, at 3:13 PM
BITSY is offered as a complementary technique for WebStorage not as a
replacement to SQL.
On Apr 24, 2009, at 4:03 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
We want to standardize interception of HTTP requests inside Web
browsers
so as to allow applications to do
, at 10:44 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
Hi, Nikunj-
Nikunj Mehta wrote (on 4/21/09 5:44 PM):
Apparently the new charter [1] that forces everyone to re-join the
WG
also lists among its deliverables as WebStorage with the explanation
that WebStorage is
two APIs for client-side data storage in Web
On Apr 11, 2009, at 12:39 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:55 PM, Nikunj Mehta nikunj.me...@oracle.com
wrote:
On Apr 10, 2009, at 3:13 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
Can someone state the various requirements for Web Storage? I did
the purpose of publishing the document. A
boilerplate status is not appropriate since there are important
concerns about the technique used for structured storage in the draft.
Nikunj Mehta
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0131.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives
/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0133.html
On Apr 10, 2009, at 9:50 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Hi Nikunj,
On Apr 10, 2009, at 10:42 AM, ext Nikunj Mehta wrote:
Oracle does not support the substance of the current Web Storage
draft
[1][2][3]. This is a path-breaking change to the Web
Just a clarification about the charter...
On Apr 10, 2009, at 9:50 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Regarding a WG Note, that doesn't seem appropriate in this case
since the WG's plan of record (Charter) is to create a
Recommendation for this spec.
The charter [1] includes Offline APIs and
On Apr 10, 2009, at 1:53 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
One clear problem identified despite these examples is that we do
not have a precise enough spec for the query language to make truly
independent interoperable implementations possible.
There are several different query languages that
On Apr 8, 2009, at 2:51 PM, Vladimir Vukicevic wrote:
There's been a lot of interest around the Web Storage spec (formerly
part of whatwg HTML5), which exposes a SQL database to web
applications to use for data storage, both for online and offline
use. It presents a simple API designed
On Jan 16, 2009, at 6:10 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Nikunj Mehta
nikunj.me...@oracle.com wrote:
I have reviewed the draft specification dated 1/14 [1]. I am not
sure about
the status of this spec vis-a-vis this WG. Still, and without having
reviewed any
The currently written text appears normative, but that is misleading
since such sections are usually informative. Pre-flight request
results are also stored to disk and so, it is a good idea to either
add something to the Security Considerations or deal with it in the
rest of the spec.
Access-Control: allow example.org
There is no token defined for allow.
Nikunj
.
Nikunj
http://o-micron.blogspot.com
On Oct 16, 2008, at 12:19 AM, Michael(tm) Smith wrote:
Nikunj Mehta [EMAIL PROTECTED], 2008-10-14 21:00 -0700:
[...] More documents explaining the motivation for this approach as
well as comparisons with other techniques such as Gears and FeedSync are
also
techniques such as
Gears and FeedSync are also available [2]
Regards,
Nikunj Mehta, Ph. D.
Consulting Member of Technical Staff
Oracle
[1] http://oracle.com/technology/tech/feeds/spec/bitsy.xhtml
[2] http://oracle.com/technology/tech/feeds
P. S. If you are having trouble viewing the draft, blame
78 matches
Mail list logo
