On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Ok, I'm going to start by taking a step back here.
There is no such thing as implicit transactions.
db.objectStore(foo, mode)
is just syntactic
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Ok, I'm going to start by taking a step back here.
There is no such thing as implicit transactions.
db.objectStore(foo, mode)
is just syntactic
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 6:52 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Ok, I'm going to start by taking a step back here.
There is no such thing as
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 6:52 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
wrote:
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:06 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 6:52 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Shawn Wilsher sdwi...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 8/4/2010 10:53 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
Whoatransaction() is synchronous?!? Ok, so I guess the entire premise
of my question was super confused. :-)
It is certainly spec'd that way [1]. The locks do not
Ok, I'm going to start by taking a step back here.
There is no such thing as implicit transactions.
db.objectStore(foo, mode)
is just syntactic sugar for
db.transaction([foo], mode).objectStore(foo)
so it always starts a new transaction. I think for now, lets take
db.objectStore(..) out of
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
In the IndexedDB spec, there are two ways to create a transaction. One is
explicit (by calling IDBDatabase.transaction()) and one is implicit (for
example, by calling IDBDatabase.objectStore.get(someKey)). I have
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
In the IndexedDB spec, there are two ways to create a transaction. One
is
explicit (by calling IDBDatabase.transaction()) and one is implicit
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
In the IndexedDB spec, there are two ways to create a transaction. One
is
I talked to Andrei in person. He seemed to think this was discussed and
agreed upon sometime earlier but agreed the spec could be more clear.
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com wrote:
On
On 8/4/2010 10:24 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
Jonas/Shawn: Since it seems you've been getting some feedback on your
implementation, do you have any data to suggest that implicit transactions
are being used and considered helpful in the wild?
I have not yet seen any specific feedback about it as
On 8/4/2010 8:42 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
In the IndexedDB spec, there are two ways to create a transaction. One is
explicit (by calling IDBDatabase.transaction()) and one is implicit (for
example, by calling IDBDatabase.objectStore.get(someKey)). I have
questions about the latter, but before
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Shawn Wilsher sdwi...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 8/4/2010 8:42 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
In the IndexedDB spec, there are two ways to create a transaction. One is
explicit (by calling IDBDatabase.transaction()) and one is implicit (for
example, by calling
On 8/4/2010 10:53 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
Whoatransaction() is synchronous?!? Ok, so I guess the entire premise
of my question was super confused. :-)
It is certainly spec'd that way [1]. The locks do not get acquired
until the first actual bit of work is done though.
Cheers,
For what it's worth I haven't found using it this way to be that hard or
confusing but that could be because I'm a little more aware of the
underlying implications when opening object stores.
-Mikeal
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Shawn Wilsher sdwi...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 8/4/2010 10:53
16 matches
Mail list logo
