On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 2:55 AM, Chris Anderson jch...@apache.org wrote:
Hello,
Long time fan, first time writer. ;)
I've been following the Web Storage proposals with interest, and was
just independently drafting a mail suggesting the a B-Tree API would
be much simpler to standardize, and
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 12:41 PM, bugzi...@farnsworth.w3.org wrote:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7104
Summary: Disagreement on handling of null value for
localStorage.setItem()
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Jul 21, 2009, at 11:25 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
On Jul 21, 2009, at 9:15 PM, Adrian Bateman wrote:
While it might not be the perfect solution (we know the web far from
ideal and is a lot of compromise), this
When used in conjunction with AppCache, the offline behavior of localStorage
should be reasonably deterministic. I assume you were just using a page
that had been normally cached and things weren't working 100%?
2009/7/30 ~:'' ありがとうございました j.chetw...@btinternet.com
Is localStorage read and
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 1:52 AM, Marcos Caceres marc...@opera.com wrote:
Keeping in line with the design goals to enable Widget-related technologies
to be used on the Web, I'm wondering if we should spawn a separate
specification for notifications? We could use the current text in the AE
[1]
+ Dumi who's working on this for Chromium and has dealt with some of these
issues recently, IIRC.
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 4:37 AM, Lachlan Hunt lachlan.h...@lachy.id.auwrote:
Hi,
In the processing model [1], step 2 says:
If an error occurred in the opening of the transaction (e.g. if the
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 12:50 AM, Arve Bersvendsen ar...@opera.com wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:05:58 +0200, David Bennett d...@google.com wrote:
I have a proposal for an extension to javascript to enable browsers to
access system idle information. Please give me feedback and suggestions
opportunity?
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Sep 17, 2009, at 1:35 PM, ext Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 12:50 AM, Arve Bersvendsen ar...@opera.com
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:05:58 +0200, David Bennett d...@google.com
wrote:
I have a proposal for an extension
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.net wrote:
* Jeremy Orlow wrote:
As far as I know, there really aren't any. This was discussed on WhatWG
(before being directed here) and IIRC there were no serious security or
privacy concerns. The minimum resolution
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 7:25 AM, Web Applications Working Group Issue
Tracker sysbot+trac...@w3.org sysbot%2btrac...@w3.org wrote:
ISSUE-104: supporting structured clones [XHR2]
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/104
Raised by: Anne van Kesteren
On product: XHR2
It would be nice
There already is a WebDatabase API which is SQL based. That sounds way to
close to WebDB for my comfort.
Maybe WebDatabase should be WebSQLDatabase or WebSQLDB
And WebSimpleDB should be WebTreeDatabase or WebTreeDB?
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Simon Raboczi rabo...@gmail.com wrote:
FYI, the original WhatWG thread:
http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-October/thread.html#23625
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Gregg Tavares g...@google.com wrote:
I posted something about this in the whatwg list and was told to bring it
here.
Currently, AFAIK, the only
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 8:04 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux d...@w3.orgwrote:
(adding the Device APIs Working Group mailing list in CC:)
Hi John, Web Apps
Le lundi 19 octobre 2009 à 14:12 -0700, John Gregg a écrit :
Apologies for the delay, I've been spending the majority of my time
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta nikunj.me...@oracle.comwrote:
Thanks Pablo for reviewing the spec and providing valuable feedback on
improving it. I have been incorporating feedback in to the editor's draft as
I get it. I expect some more work before turning around and asking
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
On Nov 4, 2009, at 8:42 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
I know we had this conversation before, and I'm not even sure which
side of the issue I was on at the time, but given the
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:35:57 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com
wrote:
Further: if the other vendors planning to ship Web Database
implementations (Google, Opera, perhaps others who have not spoken up yet)
take
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
Whoa.
I believe that the original renaming of the thread intended to clarify the
DAP's mission and stance on security, but we've devolved again into more
muddied up discussion, so I'd like to take a second stab at
These are reasons, but I think the greatest cause of our concern is that we
have not seen any examples of how policies can provide the same level of
security that baking security into the API from the beginning can provide.
All too often the policy based approaches fall back on either asking the
we need to go into more detail on these two (as examples)?
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Nov 20, 2009, at 9:15 AM, ext Jeremy Orlow wrote:
These are reasons, but I think the greatest cause of our concern is that
we have not seen any examples of how policies can provide
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta nikunj.me...@oracle.comwrote:
On Nov 24, 2009, at 7:40 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Based on the responses for this call for comments, I see the next steps
as:
1. Server-sent Events, Web Storage and
I agree with Mike, but I'd also note that Web Key-Value Database could
easily be confused with WebStorage given that it also uses a Key-Value
model.
Which brings up another point: Maybe WebStorage should be renamed as well?
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:20 AM, Michael(tm) Smith m...@w3.org wrote:
Of course, what's shipping in IE 8 is broken in that it doesn't support
run to completion (and neither will Chrome 4). So honestly I'm not super
compelled by the IE shipped argument.
I still think giving a close approximation to run to completion (repeatable
reads semantics) + a callback for
For those not following WhatWG: Ian just responded to the latest round of
localStorage feedback there and I just elaborated on my proposal.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 2:06 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
Of course, what's shipping in IE 8 is broken in that it doesn't support
run
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Kris Zyp k...@sitepen.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I had few thoughts/questions/issues with the WebSimpleDB proposal:
* No O(log n) access to position/counts in index sequences - If you
want find all the entities that have a
Thanks Art and Nikunj!
Overall, I think it looks great. There are a few things I'd suggest we
change for WebStorage:
StorageEvents should be mentioned. They're actually one of the greatest
strengths of the WebStorage API.
Right now, there's a no for atomicity, concurrency-error-free
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta nikunj.me...@oracle.comwrote:
On Dec 3, 2009, at 9:19 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
Thanks Art and Nikunj!
Overall, I think it looks great. There are a few things I'd suggest we
change for WebStorage:
StorageEvents should be mentioned. They're
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Joran Greef jo...@sexbyfood.com wrote:
The use of the storage mutex to avoid race conditions is currently
considered by certain implementors to be too high a performance burden, to
the point where allowing data corruption is considered preferable.
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.comwrote:
Nikunj would like to move the Indexed Database API spec to Last Call
Working Draft (LCWD):
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebSimpleDB/
If you have any comments, please send them to public-webapps@w3.org by
February
The interface names in IndexedDB (and to an extent, WebSQLDatabase) are very
generic. Surprisingly, the specs only collide via the Database interface
(which is why I bring this up), but I'm concerned that names like Cursor,
Transaction, and Index (from IndexedDB) are so generic that they're bound
synchronous variants of these interfaces) so maybe we should just
prefix everything?
Thanks!
J
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On Jan 22, 2010, at 12:01 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
The interface names in IndexedDB (and to an extent, WebSQLDatabase) are
very
(Are these comments going into someone's queue somewhere, or should I be
concerned there was no further response? I ask because I'd kind of like to
start checking .idl files into WebKit. :-)
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
In general, sounds good to me
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.comwrote:
2. Values
a. 3.1.2: isn't the requirement for structured clones too much? It
would mean implementations would have to be able to store and retrieve File
objects and such. Would it be more appropriate to say
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Jared Morse jarc...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps I am mistaken, but I believe you would still have to go around and
add that trigger to all the places the value is changed from.
That is true.
Can you give some clear examples of when having local storage events
around this issue should a developer face it. However, I do
think the advantage of having your glue code written for you would be of
great benefit to developers.
-J
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Jared Morse jarc
assume production builds
of Chrome as well).
-J
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.orgwrote:
We could change it to fire in all windows and have a boolean that says
whether you fired it. Maybe that's the best solution?
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Jared
the feedback and early implementation
experience coming.
On Jan 30, 2010, at 5:38 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
I've started work on implementing the IndexedDB bindings in WebKit as a
way to sanity check the API. I figure it's easiest to trickle feedback to
this list rather than save it all up
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On Jan 26, 2010, at 12:47 PM, Pablo Castro wrote:
These are notes that we collected both from reviewing the spec (editor's
draft up to Jan 24th) and from a prototype implementation that we are
working on. I didn't
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 10:33 AM, John Gregg john...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fiwrote:
Hi all,
some random comments about
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebNotifications/publish/
(I didn't know that the draft existed until the link
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fiwrote:
On 2/3/10 8:55 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
Agreed. Having a shared worker that doesn't need to worry about races
with shutting down windows seems like a big win.
Olli, do you foresee any problems with allowing access
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:55:32 +0100, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi
wrote:
NotificationCenter is a bit strange. Why do we need
a separate interface for this?
I'd rather added createNotification to window object,
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:24 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Drew Wilson atwil...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
And I think the answer is yes. Any time someone talks about an
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Kris Zyp k...@sitepen.com wrote:
* Use promises for async interfaces - In server side JavaScript, most
projects are moving towards using promises for asynchronous interfaces
instead of trying to define the specific callback parameters for each
interface. I
In addition to looking at the UA side of the IndexedDB AI, I've been talking
to our web apps teams about it to get their initial impressions. I'm going
to batch most of the feedback together in another email, but this is a big
enough feature and important enough to all of those teams that I
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 3:37 AM, Pablo Castro pablo.cas...@microsoft.comwrote:
I prefer to leave composite keys to a future version.
I don't think we can get away with this. For indexes this is quite common
(if anything else to have stable ordering when the prefix of the index has
Some feedback/issues based on talks with web apps teams at Google.
With WebSQLDatabase, there's been some concern and headache over users being
able to easily delete individual databases without fully understanding the
consequences (and the fact that it might break apps in strange and
I'm sorry that I let so much IndexedDB feedback get backlogged. In the
future, I'll try to trickle things out slower.
*
*
*Indexes:*
1) Creation of indexes really needs to be made more clear. For example,
does creation of the index block everything until it's complete or does the
database get
, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Drew Wilson atwil...@google.comwrote:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 5:06 AM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote:
On Feb 11, 2010, at 16:07, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
As has been brought up repeatedly, growl and the other notification
engines are used by a SMALL FRACTION
is
IndexedDatabaseRequest. Can we please change IndexedDatabase to
IndexedDatabaseSync for consistency, even though there is no common shared
base class?
J
P.S. Would it be useful to accompany requests like this with a patch against
Overview.html?
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor
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 k...@sitepen.com wrote:
* Use promises for async interfaces - In server side JavaScript,
most
projects are moving towards
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 6:03 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On Feb 28, 2010, at 3:24 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
Another nit: as far as I can tell, all of the common parts of the
interfaces are named Foo, the synchronous API portion is FooSync, and the
async API portion
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
Thanks for the pointers. I'm actually pretty sold on the general idea of
promises, and my intuition is that there won't be a very big resource
penalty for using an API like this rather than callbacks or what's currently
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Kris Zyp k...@sitepen.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 3/1/2010 2:52 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
Thanks for the pointers. I'm actually pretty sold on the general
idea of promises, and my intuition is that there won't be a very
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Kris Zyp k...@sitepen.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 3/1/2010 2:52 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
Thanks for the pointers. I'm actually pretty sold
Erm... s/differed/deferred/g
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Kris Zyp k...@sitepen.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Kris Zyp k...@sitepen.com wrote:
-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 k...@sitepen.com wrote:
[snip
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Kris Zyp k...@sitepen.com wrote:
-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
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Kris Zyp k...@sitepen.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 3/4/2010 10:35 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 6:37 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
mailto:jor...@chromium.org jor...@chromium.org wrote:
You
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On Mar 4, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Kris Zyp wrote:
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
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:32 AM, João Eiras jo...@opera.com wrote:
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 03:22:00 +0100, Dumitru Daniliuc d...@chromium.org
wrote:
Hi,
We (Chromium) would like to add a vacuum() call on the Database object.
[...]
I would argue about having something a bit more generic for
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On Mar 4, 2010, at 10:55 AM, Kris Zyp wrote:
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
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Dumitru Daniliuc d...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 3:39 AM, João Eiras jo...@opera.com wrote:
I don't see how the callbacks are useful though. Vacuum works
transparently, its effects are not visible, and what should the page do
in
case of
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
Thanks for your patience. Most questions below don't seem to need new spec
text.
On Feb 18, 2010, at 9:08 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
I'm sorry that I let so much IndexedDB feedback get backlogged. In the
future, I'll
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On Feb 18, 2010, at 9:08 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
2) In the spec, dynamic transactions and the difference between static
and dynamic are not very
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
(starting a new thread to focus discussion on identifying shortcomings of
currently specced API)
As specced, it is possible to have multiple concurrent requests at various
API entry points, except for the
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Shawn Wilsher sdwi...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 3/22/2010 10:05 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
I also can't seem to figure out what the success event is supposed to be
for just about anything. Am I just missing something, or is this not yet
specified?
When onsuccess
comments
on one or two of them below.
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
Thanks for your patience. Most questions below don't seem to need new spec
text.
On Feb 18, 2010, at 9:08 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Shawn Wilsher sdwi...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 3/22/2010 10:49 AM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
On 3/13/2010 1:43 AM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
As specced, it is possible to have multiple concurrent requests at
various API entry points, except for the IndexedDatabaseRequest
What is the purpose of allowing IndexedDatabaseRequest (
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebSimpleDB/#idl-def-IndexedDatabaseRequest)
to raise an exception? The only mention of it in the spec is that it raises
a NON_TRANSIENT_ERR if the name parameter is not valid. But it's not
mentioned in
Ping?
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.comwrote:
On Feb 18, 2010, at 9:08 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
2) In the spec
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Shawn Wilsher sdwi...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 4/13/2010 8:53 AM, João Eiras wrote:
Not really. The user agent can ask for quota from the user when the limit
is being hit without the webpage even having to worry about it. Opera 10.50
does that.
I agree with
This way of thinking is incompatible with offline web apps. If I'm offline
and I send and email, it needs to stay queued up to send until I'm
reconnected to the internet.
Anyone wanting to debate whether or not the UA should be free to clean up
persistent storage without asking the user should
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On Apr 20, 2010, at 5:25 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Shawn Wilsher sdwi...@mozilla.comwrote:
On 4/20/2010 3:19 PM
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:44 PM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On Mar 15, 2010, at 10:45 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.comwrote:
On Feb 18, 2010
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On Apr 21, 2010, at 5:11 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:44 PM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.comwrote:
On Mar 15, 2010, at 10:45 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Jeremy
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On Apr 21, 2010, at 5:11 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:44 PM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.comwrote:
On Mar 15, 2010, at 10:45 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Jeremy
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Dumitru Daniliuc d...@chromium.org wrote:
fwiw, i agree with michael and tab that we should split all storage into
permanent/persistent and temporary/evictable/purgeable. however, i don't
think we need separate calls such as openDatabase() and
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On Apr 21, 2010, at 1:03 PM, Michael Nordman wrote:
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Mike Clement mi...@google.com wrote:
FWIW, the transient vs. permanent storage support is exactly why I
eagerly await an
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Shawn Wilsher sdwi...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 4/23/2010 7:39 AM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
Could we create an additional optional parameter for an open request with
the type of permanence required? Or is it not a good idea?
I haven't talked to anyone at Mozilla
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 6:11 AM, Simon Pieters sim...@opera.com wrote:
You mean StorageEvent?
javascript:alert('url' in StorageEvent.prototype)
Opera: false
Firefox: true
Chrome: false
I tried actually causing a storage event and then enumerated its properties
with each browser and got
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Shawn Wilsher sdwi...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 5/5/2010 11:44 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On the other hand, a lot of even the most basic tasks probably should be
done within a transaction. But if the easiest way to do something is to
just run it outside
, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
I'd also worry that if creating the transaction were completely
transparent
to the user that they might not think to close it either. (I'm mainly
thinking about copy-and-paste coders here.)
I should have been more clear. That statement goes along with the
suggestion
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
Dumi,
I am not sure what the API expectations are for different levels of
durability of storage APIs. Is it:
1. Options passed to individual APIs selecting durability level
2. Separate API calls for different
Either sounds fine to me. Please open something in the bug tracker?
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 10:12 PM, ben turner bent.mozi...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that switching 'noOverwrite' from false to true is confusing.
I definitely vote to rename the parameter to 'overwrite' and and keep
the
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 9:23 PM, ben turner bent.mozi...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi folks,
We've been playing around with the async API and have made some
changes to the IDBRequest interface that we'd like feedback on and
hopefully inclusion in the spec. Here's what we have now:
interface
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 8:25 PM, ben turner bent.mozi...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey folks,
I'm working with Shawn on the Firefox implementation. Here's our idea
as of now, would you all please comment about things you like or
dislike? Hopefully this follows the gist of the comments shared
already.
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 6:51 PM, ben turner bent.mozi...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi folks,
We've hit a bit of a snag implementing put() for autoIncrement'ing
objectStores when using inline keys. Consider this:
Spec text from
This came up not too long ago in the context of persistent storage. The
verdict (IIRC) was that we're not interested in adding crypto just to
the persistent storage APIs, but that we might be interested in adding a
general crypto API.
Does anyone have any data for how widely used window.crypto
What does WebSQLDatabase do? I believe the version parameter was based on
that spec.
J
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 7:02 PM, Shawn Wilsher sdwi...@mozilla.com wrote:
Hey all,
A recent concern that we have come across at Mozilla is what happens when
the version changes? Do we silently continue
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 2:42 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
What happens to existing connections that were opened against the
original
database version (once the DB has been updated)?
Once a call
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Shawn Wilsher sdwi...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 5/18/2010 7:20 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
1. Once a database has been opened (a database connection has been
established) read access to meta-data, such as objectStore and index
names, is synchronous. Changes
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 9:36 PM, Shawn Wilsher sdwi...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 5/18/2010 1:02 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
A database connection that locks the entire database cannot be opened if
there is another database connection that locks at least one database
object, e.g., an index or object
Interesting you'd bring this up. Andrei and I were just looking at indexes
as specced and wondered whether it still makes sense to allow indexes to not
have a keyPath. And, if so, whether we should tie insertion into the
objectStore to insertion to the index. The main reason to make such
Is it possible for us to change the component name form WebSimpleDB to
IndexedDB or Indexed Database API in the bug tracker? I know we went
through several iterations early on, but it'd be nice if we could
be consistent about the name.
Similarly, it'd be cool if the editors draft URL could
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On May 18, 2010, at 2:33 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 9:36 PM, Shawn Wilsher sdwi...@mozilla.com
wrote:
On 5/18/2010 1
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 2:15 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
A draft of the proposed API is here:
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dfs2skx2_4g3s5f857
I just noticed another nit. Your proposal says interface IDBIndex { }; //
Unchanged but the spec's IDBIndex interface includes
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 9:38 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:36 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
Interesting you'd bring this up. Andrei and I were just looking at
indexes
as specced and wondered whether it still makes sense to allow indexes
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 9:38 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:36 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
wrote
Thanks for taking the time to do this!
Can you maybe discuss the pros and cons you found in terms of implementing
something in WebSQLDatabase vs. IndexedDB? I'm mainly interested in seeing
if there's any thing we can improve in IndexedDB that WebSQLDatabase already
does well.
J
On Wed, May 19,
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
It seems like there would be a lot of edge cases to define here
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Shawn Wilsher sdwi...@mozilla.com
wrote:
On 5/20/2010 11:30 AM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
As someone new to this API, I thought the naming used in the current
draft is somewhat
1 - 100 of 375 matches
Mail list logo
