On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 11:12 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 11:12 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
wrote:
Hi Pablo,
First off, thanks for your comments! (Probably too much) details below.
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Andrei Popescu
Sent: Monday, July 12,
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 3:52 AM, Pablo Castro pablo.cas...@microsoft.comwrote:
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
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 11:12 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 11:12 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 1:02 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 1:02 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
wrote:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10165
Summary: IDBRequest.abort() should throw on non-read-only
requests or simply be removed
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: PC
OS/Version: All
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:50:26 +0200, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com
wrote:
Has anyone been working towards a revised Security Considerations
section?
Your Google colleague Dirk has volunteered but I believe has not yet had
the time unfortunately.
--
Anne van Kesteren
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
wrote:
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Andrei Popescu 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
Hi,
I would like to propose that we update the current spec to reflect all
the changes we have agreement on. We can then iteratively review and
make edits as soon as the remaining issues are solved. Concretely, I
would like to check in a fix for
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com wrote:
Hi,
I would like to propose that we update the current spec to reflect all
the changes we have agreement on. We can then iteratively review and
make edits as soon as the remaining issues are solved. Concretely, I
I'm not sure if discussion on this normally happens on WebApps. whatwg
might be the better place.
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 5:33 PM, David John Burrowes
s...@davidjohnburrowes.com wrote:
Hello all,
I have a couple questions about the storage spec (I'm reading the June 15th
version at
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 3:10 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
For example, with dynamic transactions you can get into live-lock
situations.
I'm particularly opposed to dynamic transactions for just this reason.
We would clearly have to throw an exception or call the error callback
if
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 4:16 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:12 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 2:09 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 4:16 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:20 AM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com wrote:
Hi,
I would like to propose that we update the current spec to reflect all
the changes we have agreement on. We can then iteratively review and
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:20 AM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com wrote:
Hi,
I would like to propose that we update the current spec to reflect all
Just a minor nit: in the 2nd sentence of 3.1.4, the spec uses MAY in
red where I believe you mean just an ordinary non-normative may.
David Flanagan
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 12:35:02 +0200, Jaka Jančar j...@kubje.org wrote:
What I'd like is a global (per-host) way to disable these limitations all
at
Tyler Close wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 12:35:02 +0200, Jaka Jančar j...@kubje.org wrote:
What I'd like is a global (per-host) way to disable these
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Tyler Close tyler.cl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 12:35:02 +0200, Jaka Jančar j...@kubje.org wrote:
That is correct (both that I volunteered and that I have not had time).
I find myself home-bound for a couple days so I should be able to get
something out to Anne for feedback by the end of the week.
Apologies to all for the delay,
-- Dirk
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 3:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren
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
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Tyler Close tyler.cl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
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,
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
Dynamic transactions:
I see that most folks would like to see these going away. While I like
the predictability and
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Tyler Close tyler.cl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Tyler Close tyler.cl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On
Ok, I'll bow to majority vote then :)
/ Jonas
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
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()
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 with is
Making sure I get the essence of this thread: we're saying that cursors see
live changes as they happen on objects that are after the object you're
currently standing on; and of course, any other activity within a transaction
sees all the changes that happened before that activity took place.
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
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]
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
Making sure I get the essence of this thread: we're saying that cursors see
live changes as they happen on objects that are after the object you're
currently standing on;
Yes.
and of course, any other activity
37 matches
Mail list logo
