One of the things I noticed that seems to be missing from the IndexDB
specification is the collation algorithm used for sorting the index
keys.
There are lots of collation differences between databases, if left
unspecified I'm afraid this would negatively affect interoperability
between IndexDB
I've been looking through the current spec and all the proposed changes.
Great work. I'm going to be building a CouchDB compatible API on top
of IndexedDB that can support peer-to-peer replication without other
CouchDB instances.
One of the things that will entail is a by-sequence index for all
Hi Robert,
I think using the term execution context here is not really
advisable, as a JS call stack will contain a new execution
context for every function call level. Thus, a property named
maxExecutionContexts might as well be interpreted as the
maximum call stack depth in a single worker.
There is also some crypto as part of Dojo:
http://www.dojotoolkit.org/reference-guide/dojox/encoding/crypto.html
Best regards
Mike Wilson
-Original Message-
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org
[mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Robin Berjon
Sent: den 9 juni 2010
Hi Jonas,
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
I'm well aware of this. My argument is that I think we'll see people
write code like this:
results = [];
db.objectStore(foo).openCursor(range).onsuccess = function(e) {
var cursor = e.result;
if (!cursor) {
I will not be able to attend today's call.
Bryan | ATT
Splitting into its own thread since this isn't really connected to the new
Async interface and that thread is already pretty big.
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 10:36 PM, Mikeal Rogers mikeal.rog...@gmail.comwrote:
I've been looking through the current spec and all the proposed changes.
Great work.
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
Splitting into its own thread since this isn't really connected to the new
Async interface and that thread is already pretty big.
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 10:36 PM, Mikeal Rogers mikeal.rog...@gmail.com
wrote:
I've been
Yes. Sorry for not being clear.
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
Splitting into its own thread since this isn't really connected to the
new
Async interface and that thread is
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) ife...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
On Jun 3, 2010, at 19:29 , Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
Actually, I should take that back. Some of the device specs are
definitely relevant
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9789
Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Hello,
A while ago, we discussed some simple renaming of the IndexedDB
interfaces. I have already closed
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9789
as it was a very simple fix. I would like to recap the rest of the
changes I am planning to make, just to make sure that everyone is ok
-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
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 4:46 AM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com wrote:
Hi Jonas,
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
I'm well aware of this. My argument is that I think we'll see people
write code like this:
results = [];
For what it's worth, it's unlikely that we at mozilla will implement
this anytime soon, if at all. We're currently working on trying to
reduce the ability to fingerprint [1] and this would be a step in the
wrong direction for us. This is based on discussions with security
folks here, so it's
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 6:31 AM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
Splitting into its own thread since this isn't really connected to the new
Async interface and that thread is already pretty big.
On Wed, Jun 9,
I still see the old Request post-fixed names when looking at
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/IndexedDB/#async-api
Despite the top of the file saying that this is the June 10th version.
Is there somewhere else I should look?
/ Jonas
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Andrei Popescu
Arg, drats, I missed the planning part of your email :)
Sounds good to me, the only thing I would add is that I think we
should remove the base-interfaces, like IDBObjectStore, and copy the
relevant properties to both (async and sync) sub-interfaces.
/ Jonas
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 10:27 AM,
Also, we need to redirect from the CVS version of the draft to the Mercurial
version, since we are going to be maintaining only the Mercurial version. This
version can be found at:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndexedDB/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
Nikunj
On Jun 10, 2010, at 10:29 AM, Jonas Sicking
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Arg, drats, I missed the planning part of your email :)
Sounds good to me, the only thing I would add is that I think we
should remove the base-interfaces, like IDBObjectStore, and copy the
relevant properties to both
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
For what it's worth, it's unlikely that we at mozilla will implement
this anytime soon, if at all. We're currently working on trying to
reduce the ability to fingerprint [1] and this would be a step in the
wrong direction
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 5:52 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 4:46 AM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com wrote:
Hi Jonas,
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
I'm well aware of this. My argument is that I think we'll see
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 6:31 AM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
wrote:
Splitting into its own thread since this isn't really connected to the
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9903
Summary: Need to define specification and use of collations for
string sorting
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Ah, good point. I hadn't thought about just using postMessage in my
ontransactioncommitted, that'll work. Thanks.
-Mikeal
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Mikeal Rogers mikeal.rog...@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, good point. I hadn't thought about just using postMessage in my
ontransactioncommitted, that'll work. Thanks.
Except, how do you get a reference to the other windows that are
affected? There is no API to
For some reason I thought postMessage was broadcast, but looking at it
further I was entirely incorrect.
-Mikeal
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Mikeal Rogers mikeal.rog...@gmail.com
wrote:
Ah, good point. I hadn't
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 8:13 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 8:13 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 6:31 AM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 6:31 AM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
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; deadline
February 2
I see that in the trunk version of the spec [1] that delete() was
-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;
From: Kris Zyp [mailto:k...@sitepen.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline
February 2
On 6/10/2010 4:15 PM, Pablo Castro wrote:
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org
[mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Jonas Sicking
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: [IndexedDB] Event on commits (WAS: Proposal for async API
34 matches
Mail list logo
