On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Pablo Castro
wrote:
> Making sure I get the essence of this thread: we're saying that cursors see
> live changes as they happen on objects that are "after" the object you're
> currently standing on;
Yes.
> and of course, any other activity within a transaction
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Pablo Castro
wrote:
>
> From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 5:43 PM
>
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Pablo Castro
> wrote:
>>
>> From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 12:07 AM
Making sure I get the essence of this thread: we're saying that cursors see
live changes as they happen on objects that are "after" the object you're
currently standing on; and of course, any other activity within a transaction
sees all the changes that happened before that activity took place.
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 5:43 PM
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Pablo Castro
wrote:
>
> From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 12:07 AM
>
>> I think what I'm struggling with is how dynamic transaction
Ok, I'll bow to majority vote then :)
/ Jonas
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Pablo Castro
wrote:
> From my perspective cancelling is not something that happens that often, and
> when it happens it's probably ok to cancel the whole transaction. If we can
> spec abort() in the transaction obje
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Tyler Close wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Tyler Close wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Anne van Kesteren
wrote:
>>
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Pablo Castro
wrote:
>
> From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 12:07 AM
>
>>> > Dynamic transactions:
>>> > I see that most folks would like to see these going away. While I like
>>> > the predictability and simplifications
>From my perspective cancelling is not something that happens that often, and
>when it happens it's probably ok to cancel the whole transaction. If we can
>spec abort() in the transaction object such that it try to cancel all pending
>operations and then rollback any work that has been done so f
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Tyler Close wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 12:35:02 +0200, Jaka Jančar wrote:
>
From: jor...@google.com [mailto:jor...@google.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 12:10 AM
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 3:52 AM, Pablo Castro
wrote:
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Andrei Popescu
Sent: Monday, July 1
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 12:07 AM
>> > Dynamic transactions:
>> > I see that most folks would like to see these going away. While I like the
>> > predictability and simplifications that we're able to make by using static
>> > scopes for trans
That is correct (both that I volunteered and that I have not had time).
I find myself home-bound for a couple days so I should be able to get
something out to Anne for feedback by the end of the week.
Apologies to all for the delay,
-- Dirk
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 3:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren wr
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Tyler Close wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 12:35:02 +0200, Jaka Jančar wrote:
What I'd like is a global (per-host) way to disable thes
Tyler Close wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 12:35:02 +0200, Jaka Jančar wrote:
What I'd like is a global (per-host) way to disable these limitations all
at once, giving XHR unrestricte
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 12:35:02 +0200, Jaka Jančar wrote:
>>>
>>> What I'd like is a global (per-host) way to disable these limitations all
>>> at once, giving XHR unrestricted acces
Just a minor nit: in the 2nd sentence of 3.1.4, the spec uses "MAY" in
red where I believe you mean just an ordinary non-normative "may".
David Flanagan
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:20 AM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I would like to propose that we update the current spec to reflect all
>>> the changes we have agreement on. We
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:20 AM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to propose that we update the current spec to reflect all
>> the changes we have agreement on. We can then iteratively review and
>> make edits as soon as the r
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:12 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Andrei Popescu
> wrote:
> >> > On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 2:09 AM, Jonas Sicking
> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:20 AM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to propose that we update the current spec to reflect all
> the changes we have agreement on. We can then iteratively review and
> make edits as soon as the remaining issues are solved. Concretely, I
> would like to che
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 4:16 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Jeremy Orlow
> wrote:
> >> > On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Jonas Sicking
> wrote
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:12 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 2:09 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Andrei Popescu
>> >> wrote:
>>
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 4:16 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Jeremy Orlow
>> >> wro
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 3:10 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> For example, with dynamic transactions you can get into live-lock
> situations.
I'm particularly opposed to dynamic transactions for just this reason.
We would clearly have to throw an exception or call the error callback
if we detect liveloc
I'm not sure if discussion on this normally happens on WebApps. whatwg
might be the better place.
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 5:33 PM, David John Burrowes <
s...@davidjohnburrowes.com> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I have a couple questions about the storage spec (I'm reading the June 15th
> version at (ht
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to propose that we update the current spec to reflect all
> the changes we have agreement on. We can then iteratively review and
> make edits as soon as the remaining issues are solved. Concretely, I
> would like to ch
Hi,
I would like to propose that we update the current spec to reflect all
the changes we have agreement on. We can then iteratively review and
make edits as soon as the remaining issues are solved. Concretely, I
would like to check in a fix for
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9975
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 2:09 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Andrei Popescu
> wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 1:14 AM, Jonas Sicking
> wrote:
> >>>
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Jeremy Orlow
> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Jonas Sicking
> wrote
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:50:26 +0200, Mark S. Miller
wrote:
Has anyone been working towards a revised Security Considerations
section?
Your Google colleague Dirk has volunteered but I believe has not yet had
the time unfortunately.
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10165
Summary: IDBRequest.abort() should throw on non-read-only
requests or simply be removed
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: PC
OS/Version: All
Status
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 1:02 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Jeremy Orlow
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Jonas Sicking
> w
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 1:02 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Jeremy Orlow
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 11:12 PM, Jeremy Orlow
>> >
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Jeremy Orlow
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 11:12 PM, Jeremy Orlow
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Jonas Sicking
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 11:12 PM, Jeremy Orlow
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Jeremy Orlow
>> >
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 3:52 AM, Pablo Castro wrote:
>
> From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Andrei Popescu
> Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 5:23 AM
>
> Sorry I disappeared for a while. Catching up with this discussion was an
> interesting exercis
Hi Pablo,
First off, thanks for your comments! (Probably too much) details below.
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Pablo Castro
wrote:
>
> From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Andrei Popescu
> Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 5:23 AM
>
> Sorry I d
37 matches
Mail list logo
