There appears to be a minor edge case in the IndexedDB draft (
http://www.w3.org/TR/IndexedDB) - and inconsistencies between
implementations - for the ECMAScript negative zero number value. While the
other numeric edge cases - NaN and +/-Infinity - are called out explicitly
in the draft when
We've received feedback from early users of Chrome's implementation of
IndexedDB requesting the ability to enumerate databases exist within an
origin. We'd like the propose the following API addition to the IndexedDB
API.
TL;DR version:
We add IDBFactory.getDatabaseNames() which asynchronously
In the WebIDL snippet and description for IDBFactory, the cmp method is
defined as returning int which isn't defined in WebIDL (that I can see);
presumably this should be long or one of the other signed numeric types?
(short, byte, long long, float, double)
As we're implementing IDBFactory.cmp in WebKit we noticed that the
ordering sense is reversed compared to C's strcmp/memcmp, Perl's cmp/=
operators, etc.
As currently spec'd, IDBFactory.cmp(first, second) returns 1 if first
second
C's memcmp/strcmp(first, second) return -1 if first second
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.comwrote:
On Friday, October 14, 2011 3:57 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
On Friday, October 14, 2011 2:43 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.comwrote:
On Monday, October 24, 2011 7:40 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
While I was there it did occur to me that the fact that the .delete
function
returns (through request.result in the async API) true/false depending
on if
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Hi guys,
Currently the spec contains the following sentence:
Conforming user agents must automatically abort a transaction at the
end of the scope in which it was created, if an exception is
propagated to that scope.
So far as I can see, Section 3.1.3 Keys doesn't seem to forbid circular
references in keys which are Array objects, but this will obviously cause
infinite loops in the comparison algorithm. This is in contrast to values,
where the structured clone algorithm explicitly deals with cyclic
references.
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Joshua Bell jsb...@chromium.org wrote:
I suggest an addition to the text e.g. However, an Array values is only
a
valid key if every item in the array is defined, if every item
Should IDBIndex (and IDBIndexSync) expose a readonly boolean multientry
attribute reflecting the multientry flag of the index?
The index's unique flag is exposed in this way. Is there a reason the
multientry flag is not?
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.comwrote:
On Wednesday, November 09, 2011 4:47 PM, Joshua Bell wrote:
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
In section 4.7 Steps for extracting a key from a value using a key
path step #4
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Joshua Bell jsb...@chromium.org wrote:
I do however think that we should simply state that getting the index
values will use the normal method for looking up properties on JS
objects
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Joshua Bell jsb...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Joshua Bell jsb...@chromium.org
wrote
Jonas and I were having an offline discussing regarding the synchronous
Indexed Database API and noting how clean and straightforward it will allow
Worker scripts to be. One general Worker issue we noted - independent of
IDB - was that there are cases where Worker scripts may need to fetch data
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
We discussed a very similar thing about a year ago; I've been meaning to
bring that up again, so this is probably as good a time as any.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010OctDec/1075.html
Ah, thanks -
Should the parameter used in IDBObjectStore.createIndex() and the property
on IDBIndex be spelled multientry (as it is in the spec currently), or
multiEntry (based on multi-entry as the correct English spelling)?
Has any implementation shipped with the new name yet (vs. the old
multirow)? Any
Is there any particular reason why IDBTransaction.objectStore() and
IDBObjectStore.index() should be usable (i.e. return values vs. raise
exceptions) after the containing transaction has finished?
Changing the spec so that calling these methods after the containing
transaction has finished raises
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
On December 15, 2011 10:20 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Joshua Bell jsb...@chromium.org
wrote:
Is there any
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Joshua Bell jsb...@chromium.org wrote:
I thought this issue was theoretical when I filed it, but it appears to be
the reason behind the difference in results for IE10 vs. Chrome 17 when
running this test:
http://samples.msdn.microsoft.com/ietestcenter
if there's precedent for one step vs. two
step attribute assignment.
**
Israel
** **
On Wednesday, January 11, 2012 12:42 PM, Joshua Bell wrote:
*From:* jsb...@google.com [mailto:jsb...@google.com] *On Behalf Of *Joshua
Bell
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 11, 2012 12:42 PM
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Kenneth Russell k...@google.com wrote:
The StringEncoding proposal is the best path forward because it
provides correct behavior in all cases. Adding String conversions
directly to the typed array spec will introduce dependencies that are
strongly undesirable,
I thought this issue was theoretical when I filed it, but it appears to be
the reason behind the difference in results for IE10 vs. Chrome 17 when
running this test:
http://samples.msdn.microsoft.com/ietestcenter/indexeddb/indexeddb_harness.htm?url=idbobjectstore_add8.htm
If I'm reading the test
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.comwrote:
On Friday, January 13, 2012 1:33 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
Given the changes that Jonas made to the spec, on which other scenarios
do we
expect developers to specify a keyPath with an empty string (i.e.
keyPath =
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 1:51 PM, ben turner bent.mozi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
We tested on Firefox 8.0.1
Ah, ok. We made lots of big changes to key handling that will be in 11
I think. If you're curious I would
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.comwrote:
In looking at the count method in IDBObjectStore and IDBIndex we noticed
that its signature doesn't throw a TransactionInactiveError when the
transaction being used is inactive. We would like to add this to the spec.
with Eliot to unify the language and update the spec.
** **
Israel
** **
On Wednesday, January 11, 2012 3:45 PM, Joshua Bell wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
We updated Section 3.1.3 with examples to capture the behavior
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 2:21 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Joshua Bell jsb...@chromium.org wrote:
There's another edge case here - what happens on a put (etc) request to
an
object store with a key generator when the object store's key path does
I noticed a test regarding optional parameters on
http://samples.msdn.microsoft.com/ietestcenter/#indexeddb that IE10PP4 and
Chrome 15 are marked as failing and Firefox 8 is marked as passing. (I have
Chrome 18 and FF9 handy - no changes.)
The specific test is IDBDatabase.createObjectStore() -
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Joshua Bell jsb...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 2:21 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
What happens if a value higher up in the keyPath is not an object:
store
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.comwrote:
On Wednesday, January 25, 2012 12:25 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Hi All,
Joshua reminded me of another thing which is undefined in the
specification,
which is key generation. Here's the details of how we do it in
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 25, 2012 4:26 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Kristof Degrave
kristof.degr...@realdolmen.com wrote:
I noticed that it isn’t possible to resolve if an object store is using
auto increment for his key. This would be useful to determine when a key
should or shouldn’t be provided when adding or putting
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Joshua Bell jsb...@chromium.org wrote:
In a page utilizing Indexed DB, what should the expected behavior be for
an IDBTransaction created during the window.onunload event callback?
e.g.
window.onunload = function () {
var transaction = db.transaction('my
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 4:57 AM, Odin Hørthe Omdal odi...@opera.com wrote:
I propose that we change the numeric constants to enumerated strings in
the IndexedDB spec.
Reasoning is echoing the reasoning that came up for WebRTC:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-script-coord/**
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Odin Hørthe Omdal odi...@opera.comwrote:
From: Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
I think we've been feature complete for a while now. With one
exception, which is that some error handling that we've discussed on
the list needs to be edited into the spec.
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 8:20 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Hi All,
What should we do for the following scenario:
store = db.createObjectStore(store);
index = store.createIndex(index, x, { multiEntry: true });
store.add({ x: [a, b, {}, c] }, 1);
index.count().onsuccess =
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Hi All,
What should we do if an array which is used for a multiEntry index
contains multiple entries with the same value? I.e. consider the
following code:
store = db.createObjectStore(store);
index1 =
being added.
** **
Israel
** **
On Friday, March 02, 2012 8:59 AM, Joshua Bell wrote:
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 8:20 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:***
*
Hi All,
What should we do for the following scenario:
store = db.createObjectStore(store);
index
Thanks. Based on this, I agree that in the multiEntry scenario at the start
of this thread, 3 is the more consistent result.
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.comwrote:
I’ve created a bug to track this issue:
(For those who are confused, I sent my reply from the wrong account so the
copy to the list was eaten by the list filter. Jonas quoted everything I
wrote, though, so no context is lost.)
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thursday, March 22, 2012, Joshua
Something I'm not seeing covered by the spec - what should the behavior be
when inserting a value into an object store if the object store has a key
generator and the key path is an Array? Should this be supported, or is it
an error?
e.g. what is alerted:
var store =
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
NEW: If the optionalParameters parameter is specified,
and autoIncrement is
set to true, and the keyPath parameter is specified to the empty string,
or
specified to an Array, this function must throw
a
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
On Thursday, May 03, 2012 3:30 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:30 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Hi All,
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Kyle Huey m...@kylehuey.com wrote:
(Note, I did not include the various things relating to keyPath that I
mentioned last week, because I do not consider those to be trivial changes).
Globally, the spec is inconsistent about whether the prose is in the same
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nlwrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Joshua Bell jsb...@chromium.org wrote:
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Kyle Huey m...@kylehuey.com wrote:
IDBRequest.readyState should be an enum type, not a DOMString
What should the behavior be in the following calls?
db.createObjectStore('storename', null);
db.createObjectStore('storename', undefined);
store.createIndex('storename', 'keypath', null);
store.createIndex('storename', 'keypath', undefined);
As a reminder, the IDL for the final argument in both
Over in WebKit-land there's some disagreement about WebIDL method overload
resolution, specifically around passing null, arrays (T[]) and the concept
of Nullable.
Here's an example where we're just not sure what the WebIDL spec dictates:
void f(float[] x); // overload A
void f(DOMString x); //
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 6/29/12 12:25 PM, Joshua Bell wrote:
void f(float[] x); // overload A
void f(DOMString x); // overload B
WebIDL itself, of course, doesn't dictate how matching and dispatching
should be implemented
Actually
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Hi All,
Just wanted to give a status update regarding IndexedDB. Over the last
few weeks we at Mozilla has combed through the spec and fixed any
discrepancies that we found. The result is that we now think that we
are up
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 1:13 AM, Odin Hørthe Omdal odi...@opera.com wrote:
So, at work and with the spec in front of me :-)
Odin claimed:
There is a note near the algorithm saying something to that point, but
the definite text is up in the prose let's explain IDB section IIRC.
Nope,
We were looking at Opera's w3c-test submissions, and noticed that several
of them use a pattern like:
request = index.openCursor(undefined, 'prev');
or:
opts = {};
request = index.openCursor(opts.range, opts.direction);
In Chrome, these throw DataError per our interpretation of the spec: If
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Robert Ginda rgi...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 10/9/12 6:04 PM, Robert Ginda wrote:
I'd suggest also treating null as missing if possible.
In general, or for the specific IDB case?
Well my
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Odin Hørthe Omdal odi...@opera.com
wrote:
Last time I looked at it, WebIDL said [TreatUndefinedAs=Missing] is
meant to
be for legacy API's, and not new ones. I think that a bit strange
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:00 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 5:01 PM, João Eiras jo...@opera.com wrote:
Hi !
The specification does not specify in detail what happens to several of
the
object types once they have reached their purpose.
For
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org wrote:
WebKit does not implement key/char, but does support keyIdentifier from an
older version of the DOM 3 Events spec. It doesn't match the current key
property in a number of ways (e.g. it has unicode values like U+0059),
but
Various atttributes in IndexedDB signal no value with |undefined|:
IDBKeyRange.lowerBound (if not set)
IDBKeyRange.upperBound (if not set)
IDBRequest.result (on error, or on successful deleteDatabase/get with no
value/delete/clear)
IDBCursor.key (if no found record)
IDBCursor.primaryKey (if no
AM, Joshua Bell jsb...@google.com wrote:
Per the spec, anything the structured cloning algorithm [1] handles can
be used as record values in IndexedDB. ArrayBuffers are not on that list,
but Chrome does support them in IndexedDB.
The TypedArray spec specifies how to structured clone
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 8:16 AM, Kyaw Tun kyaw...@yathit.com wrote:
I have hard to understand how to use add method effectively.
On my indexeddb wrapper library development, the wrapper database instance
dispatches installable event for creating, deleting and updating a record.
Interested
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Florian Bösch pya...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll see that I can come up with a test suite that verifies statistical
and runtime behavior of an array of algorithms implemented in JS, it'll
probably take a while.
Thank you!
As a side benefit, having a library of
A spec oddity that we noticed - if you explicitly close a connection during
an upgradeneeded handler (or elsewhere in the transaction), the transaction
should complete (not abort) yet the connection fails (error), upgrading the
database but leaving you without a connection.
Example:
var req =
*crickets*
Given the state of the open issues, I'm content to wait until an editor has
bandwidth. I believe there is consensus on the resolution of the issues and
implementations are already sufficiently interoperable so that adoption is
not being hindered by the state of the spec, but should
Very much appreciated. I've added this and the other 4 items from Ms2ger to
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17649 for tracking purposes,
since there was some overlap with items in there already.
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 11:57 PM, Ms2ger ms2...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
From the
Resending from the correct account:
FWIW, we had a Chrome IDB bug report where someone used the developer tools
to set a script breakpoint between the open() call and the event handler
assignments. The debugger spins the event loop, so the event was dispatched
before the handlers were
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Kyle Huey m...@kylehuey.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Joshua Bell jsb...@chromium.org wrote:
FWIW, we had a Chrome IDB bug report where someone used the developer
tools to set a script breakpoint between the open() call and the event
handler
Some of us were just discussing this yesterday - it does seem reasonable
for the next iteration.
Can you file a bug at https://www.w3.org/ (product: WebAppsWG, component:
Indexed Database API) to track this?
Including scenario details such as you've done above would be great.
On Thu, Apr 25,
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 6:37 AM, Ben Kelly bke...@mozilla.com wrote:
Thanks for the feedback!
On May 19, 2013, at 9:25 PM, Kyaw Tun kyaw...@yathit.com wrote:
IDBKeyRange.inList looks practically useful, but it can be achieve
continue (continuePrimary) cursor iteration. Performance will be
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 6:37 PM, Kyaw Tun kyaw...@yathit.com wrote:
Sorry for reposting again for
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013AprJun/0422.html
Perhaps
I am not well explain enough.
In put and add method of object store and index, DataCloneError and
DataError are
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Ben Kelly bke...@mozilla.com wrote:
On May 20, 2013, at 1:39 PM, Joshua Bell jsb...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 6:37 AM, Ben Kelly bke...@mozilla.com wrote:
On May 19, 2013, at 9:25 PM, Kyaw Tun kyaw...@yathit.com wrote:
IDBKeyRange.inList
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:57 PM, Kinuko Yasuda kin...@chromium.org wrote:
Hi all,
It's been a while since Quota API's FPWD (http://www.w3.org/TR/quota-api/)
was published and we've gotten several requests/feedbacks so far.
To address some of the requests and to gain more consensus, I'm
To do this in a backwards compatible way, we could add an option on open()
that, if an upgrade is required, any other connections are forcibly closed;
instead of a versionchange event the connections would be sent a close
event, similar to the case in [1]
Open question about whether the close
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Aymeric Vitte vitteayme...@gmail.comwrote:
This is about retrieving a large file with partial data and storing it in
an incremental way in indexedDB.
...
This seems not efficient at all, was it never discussed the possibility to
be able to append data
, what's the best method?
Regards,
Aymeric
[1] http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=108012
Le 02/12/2013 23:38, Joshua Bell a écrit :
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Aymeric Vitte vitteayme...@gmail.comwrote:
This is about retrieving a large file with partial data and storing
case there will be extra book-keeping going
on but no huge data copies.
Regards
Aymeric
Le 03/12/2013 22:12, Jonas Sicking a écrit :
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Joshua Bell jsb...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 4:07 AM, Aymeric Vitte vitteayme...@gmail.com
wrote:
I am
Thanks for sending this!
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Jan Varga jan.va...@gmail.com wrote:
IndexedDB implementation in Firefox 26 (the current beta) supports a new
storage type called temporary storage.
In short, it's a storage with LRU eviction policy, so the least recently used
data
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 12/6/13 1:29 PM, Joshua Bell wrote:
// Throws TypeError on older implementations since Dictionary won't
coerce to Number (?)
Sure it will. It'll do ToNumber() and probably end up NaN (which becomes
0
While looking at a Chrome bug [1], I reviewed the Indexed DB draft, section
3.3.1 [2] Opening a database:
These steps are not run for any other connections with the same origin and
name but with a higher version
And the note: This means that if two databases with the same name and
origin, but
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Feb 26, 2014, at 10:35 AM, Joshua Bell jsb...@google.com wrote:
While looking at a Chrome bug [1], I reviewed the Indexed DB draft,
section 3.3.1 [2] Opening a database:
These steps are not run for any other
connections that are waiting. Again, all current
implementations appear to do so as FIFO.
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Joshua Bell jsb...@google.com wrote:
While looking at a Chrome bug [1], I reviewed the Indexed DB draft
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Hi all,
Currently the IndexedDB spec has strict requirements around the
ordering for readwrite transactions. The spec says:
If multiple readwrite transactions are attempting to access the
same object store (i.e. if they
Thanks, fixed.
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Danillo Paiva
danillo.paiva.tol...@gmail.com wrote:
3.1.3 Keys
(...)
Operations that accept keys must perform as if each key parameter value,
in order, is copied *by the by the* structured clone algorithm [HTML5]
and the copy is instead
Thanks, fixed in https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndexedDB/rev/9cbb21363f41
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 10:22 PM, Zhang, Zhiqiang
zhiqiang.zh...@intel.comwrote:
3.1.7 Transaction
enum IDBTransactionMode {
readonly,
readwrite,
versionchange
};
.
-Tim Caswell
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Joshua Bell jsb...@google.com wrote:
At the April 2014 WebApps WG F2F [1] there was general agreement that
moving forward with an Indexed Database v2 spec was a good idea. Ali
Alabbas (Microsoft) has volunteered to co-edit the spec with me
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:32 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.comwrote:
[ Bcc www-tag ; Marc - please use public-webapps for IDB discussions ]
On 5/20/14 7:46 PM, marc fawzi wrote:
Hi everyone,
I've been using IndexedDB for a week or so and I've noticed that
cursor.advance(n) will
performance you can call continue() as early
as possible so that the database can do its work while you're processing
the previous result.
What do you think?
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Joshua Bell jsb...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:32 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars
, Joshua Bell jsb...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 9:40 AM, marc fawzi marc.fa...@gmail.comwrote:
I thought .continue/advance was similar to the 'continue' statement in
a for loop in that everything below the statement will be ignored and the
loop would start again from the next
Playing with Promise wrappers for IDB, the intersection of IDBTransaction's
|active| state and microtask execution came up. Here are a couple of
interesting cases:
case 1:
var tx;
Promise.resolve().then(function() {
tx = db.transaction(storeName);
// tx should be active here...
The spec has no such limitation, implicit or explicit. I put this together:
http://pastebin.com/0GLPxekE
In Chrome 35, at least, I had no problems indexing 100,000 tags. (It's a
bit slow, though, so the pastebin code has only 10,000 by default)
You mention 50 items, which just happens to be how
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 9:45 PM, ben turner bent.mozi...@gmail.com wrote:
I think this sounds like a fine idea.
-Ben Turner
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Hi all,
I found an old email with notes about features that we might want to put
in v2.
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Marc Fawzi marc.fa...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the same thought pattern can be applied elsewhere in the API
design for v2.
Consider the scenario of trying to find whether a given index exists or
not (upon upgradeneeded). For now, we have to write noisy code
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Marc Fawzi marc.fa...@gmail.com wrote:
No, I was suggesting .exists() can be synchronous to make it useful
I referred to it as .contains() too so sorry if that conflated them for
you but it has nothing to do with the .contains Joshua was talking about.
In
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 9:21 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
With C, Java and all, we already know where adding blocking I/O
primitives leads to. Admittedly maybe dogma trying to learn from history.
You still
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Glen Huang curvedm...@gmail.com wrote:
The IDBTransaction interface exposes an onerror event handler. I wonder
when that handler gets called? The algorithm of Steps for aborting a
transaction” dispatches error events at requests of the transaction, but
never
It seems like the OP's intent is just to deep-copy an object. Something
like the OP's tweet... or this, which we use in some tests:
function structuredClone(o) {
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
var mc = new MessageChannel();
mc.port2.onmessage = function(e) {
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 6:04 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 12:04 AM, Jeremy Scheff jdsch...@gmail.com
wrote:
Currently, wrapping IndexedDB in promises is a perilous task. Pun
intended,
since the sticking point seems to be the distinction between
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) ife...@google.com
wrote:
To be honest this always drove me nuts when we were trying to do
WebSockets. Having code is great for conformance tests, but a spec IMO
should do a good job of setting out preconditions, postconditions,
performance
Per previous discussions [1][2] highlighted in spec issues, we'd like to
remove DOMError from the platform in favor of using DOMException.
Sanity check: web-compat allowing, should we just swap DOMException in any
place DOMError is currently used?
I've done this (among other unvetted things) in
Let me start off proposing for the group and if I'm outvoted I can send
personal feedback. :)
Standard stylesheet: http://www.w3.org/TR/IndexedDB/
My tweaked styles: https://w3c.github.io/IndexedDB/
CSS changes are visible at:
https://github.com/w3c/IndexedDB/blob/gh-pages/index.html#L79
Based on similar feedback, I've been noodling on this too. Here are my
current thoughts:
https://gist.github.com/inexorabletash/a53c6add9fbc8b9b1191
Feedback welcome - I was planning to send this around shortly anyway.
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 3:07 AM, 段垚 duan...@ustc.edu wrote:
Hi all,
I'm
A quick pre-TPAC update on the status of Indexed DB for the Web Platform WG:
The "first edition" of Indexed DB[1] became a W3C Recommendation in January
2015. Since then, the editors (Joshua Bell from Google and Ali Alabbas from
Microsoft) have started work on a "second editio
g
issue of mixing IDB+Promises remains. The proposal attempts to make code
using IDB with async/await syntax approachable, while not entirely
replacing the existing API.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 28, 2015, at 10:43 AM, Joshua Bell <jsb...@google.com> wrote:
>
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
