From: keean.schu...@googlemail.com [mailto:keean.schu...@googlemail.com] On
Behalf Of Keean Schupke
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 11:51 PM
On 1 June 2011 01:37, Pablo Castro pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: simetri...@gmail.com [mailto:simetri...@gmail.com]
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
From: keean.schu...@googlemail.com [mailto:keean.schu...@googlemail.com] On
Behalf Of Keean Schupke
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 11:51 PM
On 1 June 2011 01:37, Pablo Castro pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
On 1 June 2011 01:37, Pablo Castro pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: simetri...@gmail.com [mailto:simetri...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Aryeh Gregor
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 3:49 PM
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com
-Original Message-
From: simetri...@gmail.com [mailto:simetri...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Aryeh
Gregor
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 10:05 AM
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 5:18 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Based on that, my conclusion is that we should go with what Pablo is
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
No, that was poor wording on my part, I keep using locale in the wrong
context. I meant to have the API take a proper collation identifier. The
identifier can be as specific as the caller wants it to be. The
-Original Message-
From: simetri...@gmail.com [mailto:simetri...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Aryeh
Gregor
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 3:49 PM
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
No, that was poor wording on my part, I keep using locale in the
On 5/6/2011 7:07 AM, timeless wrote:
I think that a stored procedure could be considered as a compiled
version of a serialized function. i.e. something which loses its scope
chain, and which loses access to its parent object. If it loses access
to its scope chain which includes the interesting
On 6 May 2011 03:00, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Keean Schupke ke...@fry-it.com wrote:
On 5 May 2011 00:33, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
I don't think we
On 6 May 2011 00:22, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Keean Schupke ke...@fry-it.com wrote:
What if the new version uses the same property name for a different
thing?
Yes, obviously it's going to be possible for code changes to cause
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Keean Schupke ke...@fry-it.com wrote:
On 6 May 2011 03:00, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Keean Schupke ke...@fry-it.com wrote:
On 5 May 2011 00:33, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at
On 6 May 2011 10:18, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Keean Schupke ke...@fry-it.com wrote:
On 6 May 2011 03:00, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Keean Schupke ke...@fry-it.com
wrote:
On 5 May 2011 00:33, Aryeh
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 4:09 AM, Keean Schupke ke...@fry-it.com wrote:
On 6 May 2011 10:18, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Keean Schupke ke...@fry-it.com wrote:
On 6 May 2011 03:00, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 11:12
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 2:32 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
I'm not worried about crashes or security issues, but I am worried
about performance. Not only is it the overhead of crossing from C++
into JS, but also the fact that the C++ code has to go through extra
pains to ensure that
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
We have already decided that we don't want to take on the complexity
that comes with supporting changing collations on existing data. In
particular it becomes very unclear what to do with data that is no
longer unique under
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Keean Schupke ke...@fry-it.com wrote:
What if the new version uses the same property name for a different thing?
Yes, obviously it's going to be possible for code changes to cause
hard-to-catch bugs due to not updating the database correctly. We
don't have to add
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Keean Schupke ke...@fry-it.com wrote:
On 4 May 2011 21:01, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 1:10 AM, Keean Schupke ke...@fry-it.com wrote:
On 4 May 2011 00:57, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 12:19
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Keean Schupke ke...@fry-it.com wrote:
On 5 May 2011 00:33, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
I don't think we should do callbacks for the first version of
javascript. It gets
On 3 May 2011 23:59, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Keean Schupke ke...@fry-it.com wrote:
Why does it need to be persisted? I would prefer the database to be
stateless. Obviously all users of the database need to use the same
function.
And
On 4 May 2011 00:57, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Keean Schupke ke...@fry-it.com wrote:
The more I think about it, the more I want a user-specified comparison
function. Efficiency should not be an issue here - the engines should
tweek
the JIT
On 4 May 2011 00:57, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Keean Schupke ke...@fry-it.com wrote:
The more I think about it, the more I want a user-specified comparison
function. Efficiency should not be an issue here - the engines should
tweek
the JIT
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 1:10 AM, Keean Schupke ke...@fry-it.com wrote:
On 4 May 2011 00:57, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Keean Schupke ke...@fry-it.com wrote:
The more I think about it, the more I want a user-specified comparison
function. Efficiency
On 4 May 2011 21:01, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 1:10 AM, Keean Schupke ke...@fry-it.com wrote:
On 4 May 2011 00:57, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Keean Schupke ke...@fry-it.com
wrote:
The more I think about it,
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
I don't think we should do callbacks for the first version of
javascript. It gets very messy since we can't rely on that the script
function will be returning stable values.
The worst that would happen if it didn't return
The more I think about it, the more I want a user-specified comparison
function. Efficiency should not be an issue here - the engines should tweek
the JIT compiler to fix any efficiency issues. Just let the user pass a
closure (remember functions are first-class in JavaScript so this is not a
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 3:19 AM, Keean Schupke ke...@fry-it.com wrote:
The more I think about it, the more I want a user-specified comparison
function. Efficiency should not be an issue here - the engines should tweek
the JIT compiler to fix any efficiency issues. Just let the user pass a
Why does it need to be persisted? I would prefer the database to be
stateless. Obviously all users of the database need to use the same
function. I would recommend modular programming - create a .js script you
can include in all pages that provides 'collated' versions of the method
calls by adding
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Keean Schupke ke...@fry-it.com wrote:
Why does it need to be persisted? I would prefer the database to be
stateless. Obviously all users of the database need to use the same
function.
And if they don't use exactly the same function, maybe due to a
transient
On Sunday, 1 May 2011, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
I agree that we will eventually want to standardize the set of allowed
collations. Similarly to how we'll want to standardize on one set of
charset
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Keean Schupke ke...@fry-it.com wrote:
As long as we have a binary mode I am happy.
Something I didn't think to mention: what exactly is binary mode for
DOMStrings? I guess it means you encode as big-endian UTF-16, then
sort bytewise? This is kind of evil, but
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
I agree that we will eventually want to standardize the set of allowed
collations. Similarly to how we'll want to standardize on one set of
charset encodings supported. However I don't think we, in this spec
community, have
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
We've had quite a bit of debate on this but I don't think we've reached
closure. At this point I would be fine with either one of a) postpone to v2
and agree that for now we'll just do binary collation everywhere
On Friday, 29 April 2011, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
We've had quite a bit of debate on this but I don't think we've reached
closure. At this point I would be fine with either one of a) postpone to v2
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Keean Schupke ke...@fry-it.com wrote:
On Friday, 29 April 2011, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
We've had quite a bit of debate on this but I don't think we've reached
There is always something like UCA:
http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr10/
which looks interesting.
Cheers,
Keean.
On 29 April 2011 20:32, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Keean Schupke ke...@fry-it.com wrote:
On Friday, 29 April 2011, Jonas Sicking
34 matches
Mail list logo
