On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 9:33 PM, Joran Greef jo...@ronomon.com wrote:
On 06 Apr 2011, at 2:53 AM, Pablo Castro wrote:
The goal of IndexedDB has always been to enable things like RelationalDB and
CouchDB to be built on top, while maintaining a reasonable level of
functionality for those that
OK, having read both PC and TWI next to each other I can see now how this can
work - there is just a slight confusion in the two specs with regard to default
text direction.
Basically, PC's rules for text direction always return a direction (default:
LTR) whereas the TWI rules - and test cases
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12433
Summary: Define which status code and reason to use in the
close frame for close(), when navigating away, and
when garbage collecting an open websocket
Product: WebAppsWG
On 06 Apr 2011, at 8:56 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
1. Treat object values as opaque (necessary to avoid
deserialization/serialization overhead, this is mandatory for storing
anything over 50,000 objects on a device like an iPad or iPhone).
Please explain this in more detail as I have no
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a new Working Draft of the
WebSockets API:
http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/
Among the reasons to publish a new WD are: the last publication of this
spec in w3.org/TR/ was over one year ago, recent discussions on this
spec's LC readiness [1]
On Apr/3/2011 6:31 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Arthur Barstowart.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
I'm not sure we need to explicitly designate test suite maintainers.
I'd be okay with not having specific maintainers, but then we need to
figure out some good process for
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 3:21 AM, Joran Greef jo...@ronomon.com wrote:
On 06 Apr 2011, at 8:56 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
1. Treat object values as opaque (necessary to avoid
deserialization/serialization overhead, this is mandatory for storing
anything over 50,000 objects on a device like an
On 4/6/11, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
On Apr/3/2011 6:31 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Arthur Barstowart.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
[...]
I think all of the substantive comments to date only affect the proposed
Approval page. I'll notify the list
On 4/4/2011 8:07 AM, Joran Greef wrote:
SQLite has a fantastic track record of maintaining backwards compatibility.
Sort of. They didn't between SQLite 2 and SQLite 3. There also have
been some (albeit minor) backwards compatibility issues with SQLite 3.x
releases. The most serious of which
On 4/4/2011 10:28 AM, Joran Greef wrote:
Do you think it would be wise then to advocate doing away with SQLite before
IndexedDB has had a chance to prove itself? Surely two competing APIs would be
the fastest way to bring IndexedDB up to speed?
Who is advocating doing away with it? Note that
On Apr/6/2011 11:22 AM, ext Garrett Smith wrote:
On 4/6/11, Arthur Barstowart.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
On Apr/3/2011 6:31 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Arthur Barstowart.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
[...]
I think all of the substantive comments to date only affect
On 06 Apr 2011, at 6:26 PM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
On 4/4/2011 8:07 AM, Joran Greef wrote:
SQLite has a fantastic track record of maintaining backwards compatibility.
Sort of. They didn't between SQLite 2 and SQLite 3. There also have been
some (albeit minor) backwards compatibility issues
On 4/4/2011 10:18 AM, Joran Greef wrote:
How would you create an index on an existing object store in IndexedDB
containing more than 50,000 objects on an iPad, without incurring any object
deserialization/serialization overhead, without being an order of magnitude
slower than SQLite, and
On 06 Apr 2011, at 6:49 PM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
On 4/4/2011 10:18 AM, Joran Greef wrote:
How would you create an index on an existing object store in IndexedDB
containing more than 50,000 objects on an iPad, without incurring any object
deserialization/serialization overhead, without being
On 4/6/2011 9:44 AM, Joran Greef wrote:
We only need one fixed version of SQLite to be shipped across Chrome, Safari,
Opera, Firefox and IE. That in itself would represent a tremendous goal for
IndexedDB to target and to try and achieve. When it actually does, and
surpasses the fixed version
On 4/6/2011 10:06 AM, Joran Greef wrote:
I bring up the iPad example because I had experience with a LocalStorage
implementation (I think it was Safari) loading the contents of LocalStorage
into memory synchronously on first access, blocking the UI thread. I am
probably wrong on this one but
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Shawn Wilsher sdwi...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 4/6/2011 9:44 AM, Joran Greef wrote:
We only need one fixed version of SQLite to be shipped across Chrome,
Safari, Opera, Firefox and IE. That in itself would represent a tremendous
goal for IndexedDB to target and to
On 06 Apr 2011, at 7:14 PM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
On 4/6/2011 9:44 AM, Joran Greef wrote:
We only need one fixed version of SQLite to be shipped across Chrome,
Safari, Opera, Firefox and IE. That in itself would represent a tremendous
goal for IndexedDB to target and to try and achieve. When
On 06 Apr 2011, at 7:24 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
When a security bug is encountered, either the browsers update to a
new version of sqlite (if it's already been fixed), thus potentially
breaking sites, or they patch sqlite and then upgrade to the patched
version, thus potentially breaking
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12438
Summary: Sync API for setVersion should specify a callback
method and timeout value
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Windows NT
On 4/6/11 10:30 AM, Joran Greef wrote:
If Mozilla enjoys using the latest version of SQLite (and I assume they are not
planning on replacing internal SQLite embeddings with IndexedDB - not at this
stage at least), then web developers deserve the latest version.
This is not obvious a priori,
On 4/6/11, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
On Apr/6/2011 11:22 AM, ext Garrett Smith wrote:
On 4/6/11, Arthur Barstowart.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
On Apr/3/2011 6:31 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Arthur Barstowart.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
[...]
I
On 06 Apr 2011, at 7:42 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 4/6/11 10:30 AM, Joran Greef wrote:
If Mozilla enjoys using the latest version of SQLite (and I assume they are
not planning on replacing internal SQLite embeddings with IndexedDB - not at
this stage at least), then web developers deserve
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 4/6/11 10:30 AM, Joran Greef wrote:
If Mozilla enjoys using the latest version of SQLite (and I assume they
are not planning on replacing internal SQLite embeddings with IndexedDB -
not at this stage at least), then web
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
| Within each test one may have a number of asserts.
I don't agree.
SRP applies to functions and also unit tests. Limiting test functions
to one assertion keeps them simple and can also indicate too much
complexity
This is now resolved.
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Eric Uhrhane er...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 3:17 PM, James Robinson jam...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Eric Uhrhane er...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 2:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren
That's not the only reason. Mozilla laid out others ten months ago:
https://hacks.mozilla.org/2010/06/beyond-html5-database-apis-and-the-road-to-indexeddb/
Mozilla's plan appears to be to implement IndexedDB on top of SQLite,
and then encourage developers to build SQL in javascript on top of
On 4/4/2011 10:15 AM, Ryan Fugger wrote:
That's not the only reason. Mozilla laid out others ten months ago:
https://hacks.mozilla.org/2010/06/beyond-html5-database-apis-and-the-road-to-indexeddb/
Mozilla's plan appears to be to implement IndexedDB on top of SQLite,
and then encourage
On 4/4/11 10:15 AM, Ryan Fugger wrote:
That's not the only reason. Mozilla laid out others ten months ago:
https://hacks.mozilla.org/2010/06/beyond-html5-database-apis-and-the-road-to-indexeddb/
Mozilla's plan appears to be to implement IndexedDB on top of SQLite,
This is not a plan so much
29 matches
Mail list logo
