Is there an appropriate next step to advance this proposal? It seems
like there is interest in this approach. Does it need to be written up
in a more formal spec?
Thanks,
Kris
On 2/18/2011 10:03 AM, Sean Eagan wrote:
Very exciting proposal! I hope my comments below can help move it along.
Wow, +1 to basically everything you said, excellent refinements. The
only thing I would add/argue is that I don't think that automated
parsing of JSON is really all that important. Writing
JSON.parse(event.responseText) isn't really that hard, and it puts
syntax errors into the hands of the
Increasingly, web applications are centered around JSON-based content,
and utilize JavaScript to render JSON to HTML. Such applications
(sometimes called single page applications) frequently employ changes to
the hash portion of the current URL to provide back/forward navigation
and
On 2/11/2011 6:55 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:48:26 +0100, Kris Zyp k...@sitepen.com wrote:
Increasingly, web applications are centered around JSON-based content,
and utilize JavaScript to render JSON to HTML. Such applications
(sometimes called single page applications
On 2/11/2011 7:15 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 11.02.2011 14:48, Kris Zyp wrote:
Increasingly, web applications are centered around JSON-based content,
and utilize JavaScript to render JSON to HTML. Such applications
(sometimes called single page applications) frequently employ changes
/ Jonas
- --
Kris Zyp
SitePen
(503) 806-1841
http://sitepen.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkzYhn4ACgkQ9VpNnHc4zAxFEACdEFskxkpFNw03sICteCHjMRgP
+u8AnjfqH9fA6KHXmpMChvmAgl3kYrKG
=gElN
an unambiguous API for 'get' is worth more than
being able to
'put' 'undefined' values into the object store.
Can you describe the application that would be easier to write,
possible to write, faster to run or have cleaner code if we
forbade putting 'undefined' in an object store?
/ Jonas
- --
Kris
of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and
encouraged and silence will be assumed to be assent.
-Art Barstow
- --
Kris Zyp
SitePen
(503) 806-1841
http://sitepen.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
differently into C++.
/ Jonas
It sounds like returning to delete() for deleting records from a store
is agreeable. Can the spec be updated or are we still sticking with
remove()?
- --
Kris Zyp
SitePen
(503) 806-1841
http://sitepen.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32
noOverwrite).
2. Two methods called put and create (i.e. put(record, id) or
create(record, id))
3. Two methods called put and add.
Is putNoOverwrite seriously a suggestion? That's sounds like a
terrible name to me.
- --
Kris Zyp
SitePen
(503) 806-1841
http://sitepen.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE
?
Not as a property on the primary expected target language, EcmaScript 5.
- --
Kris Zyp
SitePen
(503) 806-1841
http://sitepen.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2/2/2010 12:48 PM, Kris Zyp wrote:
On 2/1/2010 8:17 PM, Pablo Castro wrote:
[snip]
the existence of currentTransaction in the same class).
beginTransaction would capture semantics more accurately.
b.
ObjectStoreSync.delete: delete
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/10/2010 4:15 PM, Pablo Castro wrote:
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org
[mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Kris Zyp
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 9:49 AM Subject: Re: Seeking
pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API
, since cursors would already be
array-like.
- --
Kris Zyp
SitePen
(503) 806-1841
http://sitepen.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkwQGjMACgkQ9VpNnHc4zAz8CQCfQJAoGJOA+7UoYIs8YdzFvM1W
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5/24/2010 2:10 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Kris Zyp k...@sitepen.com wrote:
or to use something like
put(record, {forbidOverwrite: true}); // don't overwrite
put(record, {onlyOverwrite: true}); // must
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5/21/2010 6:16 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Kris Zyp k...@sitepen.com
wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
I continue to believe that splitting put into 3 methods is a
very shortsighted approach
]
http://www.mail-archive.com/public-webapps@w3.org/msg08825.html
- --
Kris Zyp
SitePen
(503) 806-1841
http://sitepen.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
make
sense, CORS itself can't assign authority, owners of resources assign
authority. Any reasonable usage of CORS by resource owners would not
rely on interpreting headers in a way that assigns ambient authority.
- --
Kris Zyp
SitePen
(503) 806-1841
http://sitepen.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE
otherwise).
Thanks,
- --
Kris Zyp
SitePen
(503) 806-1841
http://sitepen.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkvoRAAACgkQ9VpNnHc4zAxtPgCgnpmjx9aXWwS4SEPBegr6p9iI
dsEAni3Yb9fbZRhdHxhYB
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5/10/2010 12:53 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On May 10, 2010, at 10:36 AM, Kris Zyp wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
On 5/7/2010 1:32 PM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
Hey all,
Per the current spec [1], noOverwrite defaults
. But on the other hand, sometimes drive-by, first-blush
comments are useful for figuring out APIs.
HTH,
- a
- --
Kris Zyp
SitePen
(503) 806-1841
http://sitepen.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
. However, these can easily be implemented
in JS, and I don't think the IndexedDB API needs to worry about such
promise libraries.
- --
Kris Zyp
SitePen
(503) 806-1841
http://sitepen.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 3/4/2010 11:08 AM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 3/4/2010 11:46 AM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
On Mar 4, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Kris Zyp wrote:
On 3/4/2010 11:08 AM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
[snip]
* There is nothing preventing JS authors from implementing a
promise-style API on top of IndexedDB
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 3/3/2010 4:01 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Kris Zyp k...@sitepen.com
mailto:k...@sitepen.com wrote:
[snip]
The promises would only have a
then method which would take in an
onsuccess and onerror
generic promise interface that can be reused everywhere, at least from
the JS perspective, not sure if the extra type constraints in IDL
demand multiple interfaces to model promise's effectively
parameterized generic type form.
- --
Kris Zyp
SitePen
(503) 806-1841
http://sitepen.com
-BEGIN PGP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2/18/2010 5:31 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Kris Zyp k...@sitepen.com
mailto:k...@sitepen.com wrote:
* Use promises for async interfaces - In server side JavaScript,
most
projects are moving towards
valid syntax for all target browser versions. ES5 predates
Indexed DB API, so it doesn't make any sense to design around an
outdated EcmaScript behavior (also it is still perfectly possible to
set/call the delete property in ES3, you do so with object[delete](id)).
- --
Kris Zyp
SitePen
(503) 806-1841
together, which would most likely be more expensive than a single get().
- --
Kris Zyp
SitePen
(503) 806-1841
http://sitepen.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkto+I4ACgkQ9VpNnHc4zAzi
in preserving the
familiarity of REST terminology.
Thanks,
- --
Kris Zyp
SitePen
(503) 806-1841
http://sitepen.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAktgtCkACgkQ9VpNnHc4zAwlkgCgti99
actions on a store.
Thanks,
- --
Kris Zyp
SitePen
(503) 806-1841
http://sitepen.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAksWCkMACgkQ9VpNnHc4zAyheACfY53gDNjZ4gqud8rqCPANk+O7
language
adapter (you mentioned you are using Dojo), I have some FIQL code in
the works.
- --
Kris Zyp
SitePen
(503) 806-1841
http://sitepen.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
Hi Kris,
Thanks for the insightful feedback.
On Nov 7, 2009, at 8:12 PM, Kris Zyp wrote:
Is there any intended restrictions on caching of objects returned by
queries and gets with WebSimpleDB?
Currently, the spec
(or
would be changed)?
Thanks,
- --
Kris Zyp
SitePen
(503) 806-1841
http://sitepen.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkr2RTgACgkQ9VpNnHc4zAwU4wCeIELYoOJX+WuUwpPhmp9Z4XHP
unguessable tokens. I am totally in favor of capability systems, but
the main criticism here seems to be around CORS overall design, and it
seems to me that the overall design is a great fit for capability
based approaches.
- --
Kris Zyp
SitePen
(503) 806-1841
http://sitepen.com
-BEGIN PGP
advantage to SQL. The same may be true
of XQuery, I haven't dealt with XML dbs.
- --
Kris Zyp
SitePen
(503) 806-1841
http://sitepen.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
as
inventing a new kind of database.
In view of point #1, this may be the best course, I don't know, but I
mainly wanted to correct some of the statements above.
- --
Kris Zyp
SitePen
(503) 806-1841
http://sitepen.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using
Well, at least when an outgoing XmlHttpRequest goes with a body, the
spec could require that upon setting the Content-Encoding header to
gzip or deflate, that the body be adequately transformed. Or is
there another e.g. to POST a gzip request with Content-Encoding?
Why can it not just be
I suspect compression from the UA to the server will need support on the
XHR object in order to work. I don't think the right way to do it is
through setRequestHeader though, that seems like a hack at best.
I would have thought this would be negotiated by the server sending a
Encoding capability isn't really a state in the HTTP sense,
since it is presumably an immutable characteristic of the server,
do you really know this? i could have an applet/script/application
which handles decoding of gz...
You are using an applet on the server to decode request entities
header as far advertising the
capabilities of a server and seems like an appropriate application of this
header to me.
Thanks,
Kris
- Original Message -
From: Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Kris Zyp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Geoffrey Sneddon [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Dominique
Hazael
As promised, I've discussed the proposal we discussed at the F2F with my
extended team and we're excited
about making the change to integrate XDomainRequest with the public
scenarios specified by Access Control.
This means IE8 will ship the updated section of Access Control that
enables
42 matches
Mail list logo
