On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
We believe an error should be thrown because of the violation of the
unique
I'd be OK with it. Jonas, what do you think?
J
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.comwrote:
On Tuesday, June 28, 2011 11:21 AM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
On Monday, June 27, 2011 11:59 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Israel Hilerio
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.comwrote:
What is the expected behavior when calling update() in a cursor index that
requires unique values. Firefox allows the update, even when it results in
a duplicate value. Chrome throws an error event with the code set
I thought it already was in there (or in some bug). But, if not, yeah it
should just be documented.
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.comwrote:
We noticed that the spec doesn’t say anything about what needs to happen
if IDBCursor.continue is called multiple
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.comwrote:
In the definition of IDBRequest.transaction it stipulates that This
property can be null for certain requests, such as for request returned from
IDBFactory.open and IDBDatabase.setVersion. Based on this we understand
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
The particular issue in question isn't a particularly important one. The
spec describes a superset of implementations, and is a logical direction
We should probably just remove the special case. I believe WebIDL specifies
that a null would then turn into the string null. This is what we've done
pretty much everywhere else I believe.
J
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.comwrote:
The parameter of
Unknown err might make sense for implementation specific bugs/issues. (If
it's not deeply tied to an implementation, it shouldn't be unknown
though.)
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
Yes in this case, but by default no. :-)
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2011 10:57 AM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
-Original Message-
From:
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
Pablo explained to me that the main issue with allowing transactions
from being created inside a SetVersion handler is identifying which
the objectStore name from the
IDBDatabase.objectStoreNames immediately after it executes.
If everyone else agrees, we should add some text or a note to the spec to
capture this.
Making it return void should be enough.
Israel
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
Well
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Joran Greef jo...@ronomon.com wrote:
On 31 Mar 2011, at 9:34 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
We have made an effort to understand other contributions to the field.
I'm not convinced that these are essential database concepts and having
personally spent quite some
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 5:41 AM, Joran Greef jo...@ronomon.com wrote:
On 31 Mar 2011, at 12:52 PM, Keean Schupke wrote:
I totally agree with everything so far...
3. This requires an adjustment to the putObject and deleteObject
interfaces (see previous threads).
I disagree that a
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Keean Schupke ke...@fry-it.com wrote:
On 31 March 2011 18:17, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Keean Schupke ke...@fry-it.com wrote:
On 31 March 2011 17:41, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011
validation). If anything goes wrong with either the
creation or validation of the secondary index if would call the done
callback with an error status code.
Cheers,
Keean.
On 18 March 2011 02:03, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
Here's one ugliness with A: There's no way
FWIW, this maybe would have been better off as its own thread. :-)
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Pablo Castro pablo.cas...@microsoft.comwrote:
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 1:11 PM
All in all, is there anything preventing adding the API
Here's one ugliness with A: There's no way to specify ascending
or descending for the individual components of the key. So there's no way
for me to open a cursor that looks at one field ascending and the other
field descending. In addition, I can't think of any easy/good ways to hack
around
We've talked about this off and on for a while now, but given that we've
made a decision on how to handle compound keys, I think we can finally come
to closure on this.
There are several basic use cases.
1) You have a names field in the object that you're storing and you want
to be able to search
Filed: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12310
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
A few observations:
1. It seems like a fairly rare use case to have to jump to item #100
,
currently implemented on top of WebSQL but an IDB version is in the works:
https://github.com/keean/RelationalDB
Cheers,
Keean.
On 9 March 2011 04:10, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 3/8/2011 6:12 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Pablo Castro
jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
wrote:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 1:41 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
wrote:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.
jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 10:12
As far as I recall, we never settled on how key path should be specified.
Right now in Chrome, we allow any combination of .'s and static array
lookups. So, for example, we allow foo.bar[1][2].baz. I don't remember
any specific use cases for the array lookups though, so I'm wondering if we
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 1:41 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Keean Schupke ke...@fry-it.com wrote:
Compound primary keys are commonly used afaik.
Indeed. It's one
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 11:02 PM, Ben Dilts b...@lucidchart.com wrote:
Why is there no mechanism for paging results, a la SQL's limit? If I
want entries in positions 140-159 from an index, I have to call continue()
on a cursor 139 times, which in turn unserializes 139 objects from my store
number of items forward of the first element in the key range. I also
wouldn't mind adding some sort of jumpForward method to IDBCursor.
J
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 11:02 PM, Ben Dilts b...@lucidchart.com wrote:
Why
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 1:38 PM, ben turner bent.mozi...@gmail.com wrote:
Firefox does lazily deserialize cursor values, so the slowdown you're
noticing is most likely due to us preserving the order of request
callbacks by queuing every continue() call in line with the rest of
the transaction.
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 1:38 PM, ben turner bent.mozi...@gmail.com
wrote:
Firefox does lazily deserialize cursor values, so the slowdown you're
noticing is most likely due to us preserving the order of request
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 7:34 AM, Joran Greef jo...@ronomon.com wrote:
I have been following the development behind IndexedDB with interest. Thank
you all for your efforts.
I understand that the initial version of IndexedDB will not support
indexing array values.
May I suggest an alternative
Jonas: any idea? I assume this is just a typo?
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
Just wanted to ping this question: why does IDB 3.2.2 fire success and
error events at each Window object, rather than at the IDBRequest
itself?
(It would make sense for
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
If an exception is unhanded in an IDB event handler, we abort the
transaction. Should we continue firing the other handlers when this
happens
, 2011 at 11:15 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
wrote:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 7:36 PM, David Grogan dgro...@chromium.org
wrote:
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
wrote:
On Thu
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:02 AM, ben turner bent.mozi...@gmail.com
wrote:
Also, what should we do when you enqueue a setVersion transaction and
then
close the database handle? Maybe an ABORT_ERR there too?
Yeah,
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Pablo Castro pablo.cas...@microsoft.comwrote:
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 11:51 AM
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
Gotcha. Does this mean that _every_ async request will fire an onerror
or
onsuccess? I guess I had forgotten about that (and assumed
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 7:36 PM, David Grogan dgro...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 7:06 PM, ben turner bent.mozi...@gmail.com wrote:
I think generally avoiding throwing exceptions is a good thing. So for
.errorCode I would say returning unidentified or 0 is the way to go.
I would say we should add a code to IDBDatabaseException, NO_ERR = 0.
Or
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:30 AM, ben turner bent.mozi...@gmail.com
wrote:
It looks like I was wrong. Our current impl throws NOT_ALLOWED_ERR for
getting errorCode *and* result before readyState is set to DONE.
And
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
wrote:
What's the current thinking in terms of events that we're firing? I
remember we talked about this a bit, but I don't remember the conclusion
, Feb 8, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
wrote:
I talked it over with Darin (Fisher), and he largely agreed with you
guys.
I'll file a bug saying that after unload, all IDBDatabases attached
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
wrote
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
wrote
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:17 PM, ben turner bent.mozi...@gmail.com wrote:
Hm, Jeremy is right, If you want to look just at the transaction and
see why it aborted you can't rely on errorCode. Ick.
The only thing I'd change then is the abortMessage property. It's
easier to tell why your
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:37 PM, ben turner bent.mozi...@gmail.com
wrote:
Normal exceptions have error messages that are not consistient across
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 2:21 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
wrote
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 3:36 AM, João Eiras joao.ei...@gmail.com wrote:
Unless by certain GC behavior mean
I referred to
# The only solution I can think of is to require (or recommend) that
implementations run the garbage collector
The GC is transparent and a spec cannot expect that it
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 3:36 AM, João Eiras joao.ei...@gmail.com wrote:
Unless by certain GC behavior mean
I referred to
# The only
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:37 AM, ben turner bent.mozi...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that's what Ben was suggesting.
Yes. We already have ABORT_ERR, no reason we can't subdivide that
since it's being overloaded. In fact I think it makes perfect sense.
That part of the spec seems completely
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
I talked it over with Darin (Fisher), and he largely agreed with you guys.
I'll file a bug saying that after unload, all IDBDatabases attached
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
wrote
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
wrote
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
We do that as well.
What's the best way to do it API wise? Do we need to add an
IDBTransactionError object with error codes and such?
I don't
We're currently implementing the onblocked/setVersion semantics and ran into
an interesting problem: if you don't call .close() on a database and simply
expect it to be collected, then you ever being able to run a setVersion
transaction is at the mercy of the garbage collecter doing a collection.
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Pablo Castro pablo.cas...@microsoft.comwrote:
From: jor...@google.com [mailto:jor...@google.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy
Orlow
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 4:23 PM
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
From
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Shawn Wilsher sdwi...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 2/6/2011 12:42 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
My current thinking is that we should have some relatively large
limitmaybe on the order of 64k? It seems like it'd be very difficult
to
hit such a limit with any sort
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Shawn Wilsher sdwi...@mozilla.com
wrote:
On 2/6/2011 12:42 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
My current thinking
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
We haven't used the term primary key too much in the spec, but I think a
lot
might actually be more clear if we used it more. And I think it'd also
We haven't used the term primary key too much in the spec, but I think a lot
might actually be more clear if we used it more. And I think it'd also make
a good name here. So I'm OK with that being the name we choose.
Here's another question: what do we set primaryKey to for cursors opened via
Just to confirm, we don't want the events to propagate to the window itself,
right?
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 3:44 AM, bugzi...@jessica.w3.org wrote:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11348
Summary: [IndexedDB] Overhaul of the event model
Product: WebAppsWG
, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
Just to confirm, we don't want the events to propagate to the window
itself,
right?
Correct. Sort of. Here's what we did in gecko:
The event propagation path is request-transaction-database. This
goes for both success and error events. However
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
I don't know much about window.onerror (I'm finding out what the story is
in
WebKit), but overall sounds fine to me.
What about complete events
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Hans Wennborg h...@chromium.org wrote:
For cursors on object stores, we disallow updates that change the key:
one cannot provide an explicit key, and for object stores with a key
path, the spec says that If the effective object store of this cursor
uses
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Hans Wennborg h...@chromium.org
wrote:
For cursors on object stores, we disallow updates that change the key
Please look at the mail archives. IIRC, it seemed confusing that you could
be looking at old data. Iterating on live data seems more consistent with
run to completion semantics.
J
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Keean Schupke ke...@fry-it.com wrote:
So whats the benefit of allowing a cursor
Given that transactions can be aborted because of explicit action, internal
errors, quota errors, and possibly other things in the future, I'm wondering
if we should add some way for people to find out why the transaction was
aborted.
Thoughts?
J
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Felix Halim felix.ha...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/1/7 Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc:
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 1/6/11 5:25 PM, João Eiras wrote:
Not different from two different tabs/windows running the same
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@visc.us wrote:
FWIW: websql is mostly abandoned, though super handy on ios mobile devices.
It's been around for a while in everything other than FF and IE.
IndexedDB is live in Chrome, Firefox and the MS interop team released a
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:47 PM, João Eiras joao-c-ei...@telecom.ptwrote:
On Thursday 27 January 2011 20:39:50 you wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@visc.us
mailto:ch...@visc.us wrote:
FWIW: websql is mostly abandoned, though super handy on ios mobile
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de
wrote:
I am really sorry to bring this up again, but: Why not separate concerns?
Why not separate input data and output data?
If onsuccess and onerror
What's the current thinking in terms of events that we're firing? I
remember we talked about this a bit, but I don't remember the conclusion and
I can't find it captured anywhere.
Here's a brain dump of the requirements as I remember them:
* Everything should have a source attribute.
*
Ok. So what's the resolution? Let's bug it!
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
Any other thoughts on this issue?
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 7:19 AM, Keean Schupke ke...@fry-it.com wrote:
I think I prefer A. Declaring the keys in advance is stating
Sounds good to me. Please file a bug?
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Hans Wennborg h...@chromium.org wrote:
Reading http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndexedDB/raw-file/tip/Overview.html,
there seems to be some inconsistency around how an object store with
key generator is supposed to behave.
In 5.1
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
So what's the plan for localStorage in workers?
J
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Keean Schupke ke...@fry-it.com wrote:
I think I already came to the same conclusion... JavaScript has no control
over effects, which devalues STM. In the absence of effect control, apparent
serialisation (of
public-webapps is probably the better place for this email
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Felix Halim felix.ha...@gmail.com wrote:
I know this has been discussed 1 year ago:
http://www.mail-archive.com/whatwg@lists.whatwg.org/msg14087.html
I couldn't find the follow up, so I guess
In another thread (in the last couple days) we actually decided to remove
timeouts from normal transactions since they can be implemented as a
setTimeout+abort.
But I agree that we need a way to abort setVersion transactions before
getting the callback (so that we implement timeouts for them as
I believe the instance of WorkerUtils is much like window in a page. I.e.
you put stuff on there that you want in the global scope. Thus I'm pretty
sure that WorkerUtils is the right place for both.
J
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 1:54 AM, bugzi...@jessica.w3.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 3:42 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Speaking of which, we use UNKNOWN_ERR for a bunch of other
internal consistency issues. Is this OK by everyone, should we use
another,
or should we create a new one? (Ideally these issues will be few and far
between
Oops. + list again.
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 1:20 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
wrote:
In addition to createObjectStore, I also intend
Btw, I forgot to mention IDBDatabase.transaction which I definitely think
should take an options object as well.
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
Oops. + list again.
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Sat
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
Btw, I forgot to mention IDBDatabase.transaction which I definitely think
should take an options object as well.
Hmm.. I think we should make
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.comwrote:
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 5:03 AM
I noticed that QUOTA_ERR is commented out. I can't remember when
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.comwrote:
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Jonas Sicking
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 1:42 PM
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 7:32 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
Any additional thoughts on this? If no one else cares, then we can go with
Jonas' proposal (and we should file a bug).
J
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Hi All,
One
Any other thoughts on this issue?
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 7:19 AM, Keean Schupke ke...@fry-it.com wrote:
I think I prefer A. Declaring the keys in advance is stating to sound a
little like a schema, and when you go down that route you end up at SQL
schemas (which is a good thing in my
I was confused re not overlapping with other exception codes. As long as we
don't have overlap within this particular exception type, we're OK.
I noticed that QUOTA_ERR is commented out. I can't remember when or why and
the blame history is a bit mangled. Does anyone else? In Chromium we
What exception should we throw? CONSTRAINT_ERR?
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 11:50 PM, bugzi...@jessica.w3.org wrote:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11394
Summary: We should throw if continue() is called with a key =
the current position
In addition to createObjectStore, I also intend to convert the following over:
IDBObjectStore.createIndex
IDBObjectStore.openCursor
IDBIndex.openCursor
IDBIndex.openKeyCursor
IDBKeyRange.bound
We did all of these two weeks ago in Chromium and have gotten some feedback.
The main downside is
Any more thoughts on this?
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
Something working (but with degraded performance) is better than not
working at all. Especially when keys will often come from user data/input
and thus simple web apps will likely not handle
Similar with the direction for openCursor or anything that takes in an enum.
I don't see any existing error that's a particularly good match for these.
Maybe I should add an ENUM_ERR or something?
J
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 12:42 PM, bugzi...@jessica.w3.org wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Shawn Wilsher sdwi...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 12/10/2010 5:03 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
Speaking of which, we use UNKNOWN_ERR for a bunch of other
internal consistency issues. Is this OK by everyone, should we use
another,
or should we create a new one
I'm pretty sure this was discussed and that EMCA5 does make it possible to
use continue as we do. At least that's the conclusion we had with delete.
My guess is that the JavaScriptCore (WebKit's main JavaScript engine)
parser needs to be changed. If so, you should probably file a bug at
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 1:23 AM, João Eiras joao.ei...@gmail.com wrote:
On , Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
I will also add that I think WebStorage (well LocalStorage) is terrible
from
a performance point of view because it is synchronous, and I'd be very
happy
if we could
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 9:47 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 1:23 AM, João Eiras joao.ei...@gmail.com wrote:
On , Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
I will also add that I think WebStorage (well LocalStorage) is terrible
from
a performance point
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
On Nov/29/2010 9:59 AM, ext Adrian Bateman wrote:
On Wednesday, November 24, 2010 3:01 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
For over a year now
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
On Nov/29/2010 9:59 AM, ext Adrian Bateman wrote:
On Wednesday, November 24, 2010 3:01 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
For over a year now
For over a year now, the WebStorage spec has stipulated that
Local/SessionStorage store and retrieve objects per the structured clone
algorithm rather than strings. And yet there isn't a single implementation
who's implemented this. I've talked to people in the know from several of
the other
Something working (but with degraded performance) is better than not working
at all. Especially when keys will often come from user data/input and thus
simple web apps will likely not handle the exceptions large keys might
generate. Throughout the rest of IndexedDB, we've taken quite a bit of
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:05 PM, bugzi...@jessica.w3.org wrote:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11350
Summary: [IndexedDB] ObjectStores should have a way to hint
that they're evictable
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:59 PM, Keean Schupke ke...@fry-it.com wrote:
Why not return the full 64bit ID in an opaque object? Maths and comparing
IDs is meaningless anyway.
Then we'd have to overload both the structured
? (And
how would that affect ordering and sorting)?
Cheers,
Keean.
On 12 November 2010 07:36, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
wrote:
On Fri, Nov
1 - 100 of 375 matches
Mail list logo
