On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 12:22 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
And is it
only possible to lock existing rows, or can you prevent new records
from being created?
There's no way to lock yet to be
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 3:14 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 12:22 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
And is it
only possible to lock existing rows, or can you prevent new records
from being created?
There's no way to lock yet to be created rows since until a transaction
ends, its effects cannot be made visible to
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On Jul 22, 2010, at 11:27 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com
wrote:
On Jul 16,
On Jul 22, 2010, at 11:27 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On Jul 16, 2010, at 5:41 AM, Pablo Castro wrote:
From: jor...@google.com [mailto:jor...@google.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 8:41
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On Jul 22, 2010, at 11:27 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On Jul 16, 2010, at 5:41 AM, Pablo Castro wrote:
From: jor...@google.com
On Jul 16, 2010, at 5:41 AM, Pablo Castro wrote:
From: jor...@google.com [mailto:jor...@google.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 8:41 AM
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Jeremy Orlow
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On Jul 16, 2010, at 5:41 AM, Pablo Castro wrote:
From: jor...@google.com [mailto:jor...@google.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 8:41 AM
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Andrei Popescu
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 11:27 AM
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On Jul 16, 2010, at 5:41 AM, Pablo Castro wrote:
From: jor...@google.com [mailto:jor...@google.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 11:27 AM
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On Jul 16, 2010, at 5:41 AM, Pablo Castro wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Pablo Castro pablo.cas...@microsoft.comwrote:
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 11:27 AM
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com
wrote:
On Jul 16, 2010, at 5:41 AM, Pablo Castro
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Pablo Castro pablo.cas...@microsoft.com
wrote:
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 11:27 AM
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Nikunj Mehta
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 5:18 PM
The author doesn't explicitly specify which rows to lock. All rows that
you see become locked (e.g. through get(), put(), scanning with a
cursor, etc.). If you start the transaction as read-only then
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 5:18 PM
The author doesn't explicitly specify which rows to lock. All rows that
you see become locked (e.g. through get(), put(),
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 5:25 PM
Regarding deadlocks, that's right, the implementation cannot determine if
a deadlock will occur ahead of time. Sophisticated implementations could
track locks/owners and do deadlock detection, although a
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 5:30 PM
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 5:18 PM
The author doesn't explicitly
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Pablo Castro pablo.cas...@microsoft.comwrote:
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 5:25 PM
Regarding deadlocks, that's right, the implementation cannot
determine if
a deadlock will occur ahead of time.
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 2:37 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com 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
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 2:37 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Wednesday,
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
Nikunj, could you clarify how locking works for the dynamic
transactions proposal that is in the spec draft right now?
I'd definitely like to
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
Nikunj, could you clarify how locking works for the dynamic
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
From: jor...@google.com [mailto:jor...@google.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 8:41 AM
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 3:09 PM,
Hi Pablo,
First off, thanks for your comments! (Probably too much) details below.
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Andrei Popescu
Sent: Monday, July 12,
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 3:52 AM, Pablo Castro pablo.cas...@microsoft.comwrote:
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
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
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com 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
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 3:10 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org 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
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:20 AM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com 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
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:20 AM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com wrote:
Hi,
I would like to propose that we update the current spec to reflect all
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 transactions, I
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 pablo.cas...@microsoft.com
wrote:
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Andrei
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com 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
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
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 12:07 AM
I think what I'm struggling with is
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com 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
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
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 exercise...there is no particular message in this thread I can
Nikunj,
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 8:21 PM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
From my examples, it was clear that we need different object stores to be
opened in different modes. Currently dynamic scope supports this use case,
i.e., allow mode specification on a per object-store basis.
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On Jul 10, 2010, at 12:29 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
We would not make dynamic transactions be the default since they would
produce more concurrency
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 8:22 AM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com wrote:
Hi Jonas,
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 3:21 AM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 8:22 AM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com wrote:
Hi Jonas,
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
We would not make dynamic transactions be the default since they would produce
more concurrency than static scoped transactions, correct?
On Jul 7, 2010, at 12:57 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Unless we're planning on making all
transactions dynamic (I hope not), locks have to be grabbed when the
On Jul 7, 2010, at 12:57 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
2. Provide a catalog object that can be used to atomically add/remove
object stores and indexes as well as modify version.
It seems to me that a catalog object doesn't really provide any
functionality over the proposal in bug 10052? The
Andrei,
Pejorative remarks about normative text don't help anyone. If you think that
the spec text is not clear or that you are unable to interpret it, please say
so. The text about dynamic scope has been around for long enough and no one so
far mentioned a problem with them.
Nikunj
On Jul 7,
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
We would not make dynamic transactions be the default since they would
produce more concurrency than static scoped transactions, correct?
On Jul 7, 2010, at 12:57 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
I'm not sure I understand the
On Jul 8, 2010, at 12:38 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010
On Jul 8, 2010, at 4:17 AM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
On 7/6/2010 6:31 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
To begin with, 10052 shuts down the users of the database completely when
only one is changing its structure, i.e., adding or removing an object
store. How can we make it less draconian? Secondly, I
On Jul 8, 2010, at 12:38 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
One of our main points was to make getting objectStore
objects a synchronous operation as to avoid having to nest multiple
levels of asynchronous calls. Compare
var req = db.openObjectStore(foo, trans);
req.onerror = errorHandler;
On Jul 10, 2010, at 12:29 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
We would not make dynamic transactions be the default since they would
produce more concurrency than static scoped transactions, correct?
On Jul 7, 2010, at 12:57 PM,
Hi Nikunj,
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
Andrei,
Pejorative remarks about normative text don't help anyone. If you think that
the spec text is not clear or that you are unable to interpret it, please say
so. The text about dynamic scope has been
On 7/9/2010 11:05 AM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
We would not make dynamic transactions be the default since they would produce
more concurrency than static scoped transactions, correct?
I'm still of the opinion that dynamic transactions are a bad idea
because it's too easy to hold a transaction
On 7/9/2010 12:50 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
The point is that we are talking of leaving out dynamic scope in v1, while, in the same
vein, talking of making READ_ONLY the default _because_ it produces good
performance. That is, IMHO, contradictory.
Dynamic scope == dynamic transactions, correct?
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On Jul 7, 2010, at 12:57 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
2. Provide a catalog object that can be used to atomically add/remove
object stores and indexes as well as modify version.
It seems to me that a catalog object doesn't
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On Jul 8, 2010, at 12:38 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at
Hi Jonas,
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 8:22 AM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com wrote:
Hi Jonas,
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:57 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
Hi folks,
There are several unimplemented proposals on strengthening and
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:57 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com
wrote:
Hi
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:57 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On 7/6/2010 6:31 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
To begin with, 10052 shuts down the users of the database completely when
only one is changing its structure, i.e., adding or removing an object
store. How can we make it less draconian? Secondly, I don't see how that
approach can produce atomic changes
On 7/7/2010 12:27 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
This interface allows asynchronously requesting more objectStores to
be locked. The author must take care whenever calling openObjectStores
that the request might fail due to deadlocks.
But as previously stated, I think this adds too much complexity
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
Hi folks,
There are several unimplemented proposals on strengthening and
expanding IndexedDB. The reason I have not implemented them yet is
because I am not convinced they are necessary in toto. Here's my
attempt at
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:57 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
Hi folks,
There are several unimplemented proposals on strengthening and
expanding IndexedDB. The reason I have not implemented them yet is
62 matches
Mail list logo
