[Bug 26161] New: Initially the XMLHttpRequest object must be in ...

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26161 Bug ID: 26161 Summary: Initially the XMLHttpRequest object must be in ... Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW

[Bug 26162] New: The name XMLHttpRequest is historical and has n...

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26162 Bug ID: 26162 Summary: The name XMLHttpRequest is historical and has n... Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Hardware: PC OS: Windows NT Status: NEW

[Bug 26163] New: Update references for RFCs 2616 and 2617

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26163 Bug ID: 26163 Summary: Update references for RFCs 2616 and 2617 Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity:

IDBObjectStore/IDBIndex.exists(key)

Hi all, I found an old email with notes about features that we might want to put in v2. Almost all of them was recently brought up in the recent threads about IDBv2. However there was one thing on the list that I haven't seen brought up. It might be a nice perf improvement to add support for a

Re: IDBObjectStore/IDBIndex.exists(key)

I think the same thought pattern can be applied elsewhere in the API design for v2. Consider the scenario of trying to find whether a given index exists or not (upon upgradeneeded). For now, we have to write noisy code like [].slice.call(objectStore.indexNames()).indexOf(someIndex) Why couldn't

Re: IDBObjectStore/IDBIndex.exists(key)

I think this sounds like a fine idea. -Ben Turner On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: Hi all, I found an old email with notes about features that we might want to put in v2. Almost all of them was recently brought up in the recent threads about IDBv2.