Hello public-webapps,
I have been following along with web components, and am really excited
about the potential.
However, I just realized that unlike the DOM and CSS, there is no real
isolation for JavaScript in a custom element. In particular, the global
scope is shared.
This seems really
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 1:19 AM, Marcos Caceres marc...@opera.com wrote:
W3C's widget specs are mature (i.e., most at CR or LC) and the working
group believes them to be technically sound and, with a few
extensions, able to meet the use cases of [2] (particularly in light
of Google using the
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, most
projects are moving towards using promises for asynchronous interfaces
instead of
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
I haven't been following the localStorage mutex discussion in detail,
but have we already rejected the idea of having content specifically
ask for the mutex via a transaction callback, similar to how web
databases work?
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 12:26 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Hmm.. This is a very interesting idea. Definitely worth exploring more.
What I had in mind was basically something like this:
1. An API for creating File objects by concatinating strings, Blobs,
ByteArrays (or whatever
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Nikunj R. Mehta
nikunj.me...@oracle.comwrote:
I haven't seen any responses to the issues below. I hope the editors can
respond to these and several other of my messages about the WebDatabase
draft.
I'm not an editor, but I'll take a swing at answering some
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 2:45 AM, Olli Pettayolli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
On 8/17/09 12:33 AM, Michael Nordman wrote:
Strictly speaking, I think the seperate 'Reader' class makes for a more
correct API. The two corners above would not conflict since each would
presumably be working with a
I change my opinion. In the access control spec, I now see:
5.1 Simple Cross-Origin Request, Actual Request, and Redirects
In response to a simple cross-origin request or actual request the
resource indicates whether or not to share the response.
If the resource has been relocated, it indicates
What is supposed to happen in a UA that supports XMLHttpRequest Level
2 when a cross-origin request redirects to a same-origin resource and
no access control headers are sent by either the client or server?
It seems like the spec says this is supposed to succeed, but it isn't
super clear to me.
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 2009, Aaron Boodman wrote:
The API was intentionally made more obviously synchronous to avoid
having to make people use callbacks.
Would making all transactions automatically rollback if not committed
when
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 3:36 AM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Aaron Boodman wrote:
On the subject of the callbacks, you should note that only having the
sync API in workers won't fix this. The callbacks are a natural result
of the requirement to never leave
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Nikunj R.
Mehtanikunj.me...@oracle.com wrote:
On Jul 25, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Nikunj R. Mehtanikunj.me...@oracle.com
wrote:
It appears that Database, SQLTransactionCallback,
SQLTransactionErrorCallback
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Nikunj R. Mehtanikunj.me...@oracle.com wrote:
It appears that Database, SQLTransactionCallback,
SQLTransactionErrorCallback, SQLVoidCallback, SQLTransaction,
SQLStatementCallback, and SQLStatementErrorCallback interfaces can all be
eliminated from WebDatabase
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Nikunj R. Mehtanikunj.me...@oracle.com wrote:
Experience has shown that there is no easy way out when dealing with
transactions, and locking at the whole database level is no solution to
failures.
The thing that makes the web browser environment different an
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Aaron Boodmana...@google.com wrote:
I do not agree that database-level locking is a big problem for web
applications.
Preemptive correction: I mean for the client-side of web applications.
There are usually at most a handful of clients accessing an HTML5
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Nikunj R. Mehtanikunj.me...@oracle.com wrote:
On Jul 24, 2009, at 1:36 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, Laxmi Narsimha Rao Oruganti wrote:
That is all the responsibility of database system. We don't need to
tell database systems on how to do it,
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Nikunj R. Mehtanikunj.me...@oracle.com wrote:
On Jul 24, 2009, at 2:06 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Nikunj R. Mehtanikunj.me...@oracle.com
wrote:
Experience has shown that there is no easy way out when dealing with
transactions
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Nikunj R. Mehtanikunj.me...@oracle.com wrote:
On Jul 24, 2009, at 3:57 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
2. create single-instance-only apps , i.e., hold a write lock on the
database forever since they don't want to deal version checks.
I don't think you understand
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Nikunj R. Mehtanikunj.me...@oracle.com wrote:
On Jul 24, 2009, at 3:57 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
In some models (non-SQL) it may be easier to
arrange a large update in the application layer and commit it all at
once. In SQL, this is less true so
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Nikunj R. Mehtanikunj.me...@oracle.com wrote:
No. The transaction is not closed on GC, it is closed when the last
statement that is part of the transaction completes. So holding a
reference to the tx variable does nothing one way or the other. The
only way to
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Nikunj R. Mehtanikunj.me...@oracle.com wrote:
I am not proposing to take away your choice. But please don't take away
mine.
It would be useful to see an explanation as to why the proposal I made
[[
add an isolation level parameter with a default value of
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
We don't need to. After it has expired it would act exactly like one of
these URIs with a bogus handle. e.g. if the URIs created by this API are
of the form local-file:93875, and that is the only particular one that has
ever been
It actually does in the latest version. Blob has a getBytes() method.
You can also concatenate blobs together using a new object called a
BlobBuilder.
I'm in the process of updating the docs and will report back when done.
- a
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Olli Pettayolli.pet...@helsinki.fi
Ok, it's live now. You can check out the Blob.getBytes() method here:
http://code.google.com/apis/gears/api_blob.html
And the new BlobBuilder object here:
http://code.google.com/apis/gears/api_blobbuilder.html
- a
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Aaron Boodmana...@google.com wrote:
It
This is an issue dear to my heart. I hate bad error reporting.
Whether passing the wrong number of arguments is an error conceptually
is a philosophical issue that I don't think we'll be able to agree on.
In my opinion surfacing obvious errors to developers is a good thing
that we should do. I
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 6:18 AM, Marcos Caceresmarc...@opera.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Aaron Boodmana...@google.com wrote:
But the thing I was talking about that we have been very happy with
was the idea of using a public key as the unique identifier for an
extension. This
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 4:11 AM, Robin Berjonro...@berjon.com wrote:
Just out of curiosity, would you mind expanding on the design ideas that
you share with widgets that make you so happy? We're interested in happiness
:) Also, do you think that beyond design ideas you could at some point reuse
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
I haven't read all the threads about the widget URI scheme, but I
wanted to contribute this thought:
Instead of using a UUID as the authority, you might consider using a
public key. You could then require that the widget
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Gears proposal has a File object too, as does Mozilla's extension. We
are proposing making the File object usable directly as an XHR body, so that
we can all support file upload through XHR interoperably without
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Arun Ranganathan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Worker Threads in Script. The idea is to offer developers the ability to
spawn threads from within web content, as well as cross-thread communication
mechanisms such as postMessage. Mozilla presents preliminary
30 matches
Mail list logo
