Whomever adds delete/continue back to the spec needs to inline into
the spec an explanation of why it's ok per ES5.
Most (all) of us grew up pre ES5 and *believe* that they're truly
reserved keywords and that what you're doing is invalid.
So without inlining the explanation into the spec, you're
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/15/2010 12:36 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
We developed a similar trick where we can indicate in the IDL
that different names are used for scripted languages and
There seems to be agreement that delete() is acceptable. Could you file a bug?
/ Jonas
On Monday, July 5, 2010, Kris Zyp k...@sitepen.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/15/2010 12:36 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:20
PM, Pablo Castro
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 3:20 PM
So there is a real likelyhood of a browser implementation that
will predate it's associated JS engine's upgrade to ES5?
Feeling a concern isn't really much of technical argument on
it's own, and
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
We developed a similar trick where we can indicate in the IDL that
different names are used for scripted languages and for compiled languages.
So all in all I believe this problem can be overcome. I prefer to
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
We developed a similar trick where we can indicate in the IDL that
different names are used for scripted languages and for compiled
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/15/2010 12:40 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com mailto:pablo.cas...@microsoft.com
wrote:
Hi,
(brief background before jumping out of the blue: I'm working with
Andrei and Jeremy with the IDB implementation..)
I'd like to mention the IDBCursor::continue is also problematic, as
afaict continue is a reserved keyword in JS?
oh, delete seems to be reserved as well:
From: jor...@google.com [mailto:jor...@google.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 3:20 AM
Subject: Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline
February 2
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 1:54 AM, Pablo Castro pablo.cas...@microsoft.com
wrote:
From: Kris Zyp
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Pablo Castro pablo.cas...@microsoft.comwrote:
From: jor...@google.com [mailto:jor...@google.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy
Orlow
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 3:20 AM
Subject: Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline
February 2
On Fri, Jun
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
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
-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline
February 2
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 1:54 AM, Pablo Castro pablo.cas...@microsoft.com
wrote:
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
-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
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
-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 Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 7:26 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Kris Zyp k...@sitepen.com wrote:
I believe computer science has clearly
observed the fragility of passing callbacks to the initial
On 3/5/2010 4:54 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
For what it's worth, regardless of the answers to the above questions, I
think we should switch to a callback based model. It's great to use
events when natural to do so, but this is a very unnatural use. It
provides artificial limitations (only one
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 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]
The
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 6:37 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
You are quite right! I misunderstood how this part of promises worked.
Is there excitement about speccing promises in general?
Yes. The starting point for a lot of the commonjs promises work is Tyler's
ref_send promise
-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 wrote:
You are quite right! I misunderstood how this part of promises
worked.
Is there excitement about
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...@sitepen.com wrote:
* Use promises for async interfaces - In server side JavaScript, most
projects are moving towards using promises for asynchronous interfaces
instead of
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 are
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
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...@sitepen.com
wrote:
* Use promises for async interfaces - In server side
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...@sitepen.com
wrote:
* Use promises for async interfaces - In server side
JavaScript,
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
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 nothing preventing JS authors from implementing a
promise-style API on top of IndexedDB, if
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 nothing preventing JS authors from implementing a
promise-style API on top of
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 on the
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
-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 wrote:
[snip]
The promises would only have a
then method which would take in an
onsuccess and onerror
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
-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
big resource penalty for using an API like this rather than
callbacks or
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
specced. At the same time, it seems as though there isn't much of a
standard
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
On Feb 18, 2010, at 4: 31AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote
Very interesting. The general concept seems promising and fairly flexible.
You can easily code in a similar style to normal async/callback semantics,
but it seems like you have a lot more flexibility. I do have a few questions
though.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED 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 wrote:
* Use promises for async interfaces - In server side JavaScript,
most
projects are moving towards
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
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 is a Javascript keyword, can we
use remove
A few comments inline marked with [PC].
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Nikunj Mehta
Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 11:37 PM
To: Kris Zyp
Cc: Arthur Barstow; public-webapps
Subject: Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Kris Zyp k...@sitepen.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
A few comments I've been meaning to suggest:
* count on KeyRange - Previously I had asked if there would be a way
to get a count of the number of objects within a given key
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
A few comments I've been meaning to suggest:
* count on KeyRange - Previously I had asked if there would be a way
to get a count of the number of objects within a given key range. The
addition of the KeyRange interface seems to be a step towards
to the working group next Monday
(25th Jan).
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Jonas Sicking
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 9:48 PM
To: Maciej Stachowiak
Cc: Arthur Barstow; public-webapps; Jeremy Orlow
Subject: Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed
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 2.
Note the Process Document states the following regarding the
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
On Jan 19, 2010, at 3:05 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
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,
For what it's worth we are in the same situation at mozilla
On Jan 19, 2010 3:40 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Jan 19, 2010, at 3:05 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at
4:50 AM, Arthur Barstow...
We at Apple are also in reviewing the spec and would also like
49 matches
Mail list logo
