On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
Also, the other motivating factor for me is access to LocalStorage from
workers. (I know it has been removed from the spec, but that is
unfortunate, no?)
This was only done because the storage mutex was added in. Now
Aaron,
You're right, my recollection is quite incorrect. My apologies for
unfairly describing the origin of the proposal.
Do you agree with Jeremy that Database is too far along in terms of
deployment to have significant changes made to it? Given that we're
still hashing our major
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com wrote:
Aaron,
You're right, my recollection is quite incorrect. My apologies for
unfairly describing the origin of the proposal.
I forgive you :).
In fact, the many design changes to the database API were made
precisely
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 6:35 PM, James Robinson jam...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 1:20 AM, Aaron Boodman a...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com
wrote:
Aaron,
You're right, my recollection is quite incorrect. My apologies for
unfairly describing the origin of the proposal.
I forgive you :).
On Sep 9, 2009, at 10:12 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
OTOH, it seems like showModalDialog() is just a sharp edge that is
likely to hurt you no matter what. Even with your proposal, unless you
carefully arranged things in preparation for showModalDialog(), you
could get stuck the same way.
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 7:55 PM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.orgwrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Michael Nordman micha...@google.comwrote:
If this feature existed, we likely would have used it for offline Gmail to
coordinate which instance of the app (page with gmail in it)
On Sep 10, 2009, at 11:22 AM, Michael Nordman wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 7:55 PM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org
wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Michael Nordman
micha...@google.com wrote:
If this feature existed, we likely would have used it for offline
Gmail to
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Sep 10, 2009, at 11:22 AM, Michael Nordman wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 7:55 PM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.orgwrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Michael Nordman micha...@google.comwrote:
If this
On Sep 10, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Darin Fisher wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com
wrote:
On Sep 10, 2009, at 11:22 AM, Michael Nordman wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 7:55 PM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org
wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 2:38
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com wrote:
On Sep 10, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Darin Fisher wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Sep 10, 2009, at 11:22 AM, Michael Nordman wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 7:55 PM, Robert
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Sep 10, 2009, at 11:22 AM, Michael Nordman wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 7:55 PM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.orgwrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Michael Nordman micha...@google.comwrote:
If this
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com wrote:
On Sep 10, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Darin Fisher wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.comwrote:
On Sep 10, 2009, at
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 2:38 PM, James Robinson jam...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com wrote:
On Sep 10, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Darin Fisher wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 2:38 PM, James Robinson jam...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com wrote:
On Sep 10, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Darin Fisher wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 2:38 PM, James Robinsonjam...@google.com wrote:
I also strongly feel that giving web
developers access to locking mechanisms is a bad idea - it hasn't been a
spectacular success in any other language.
I think that you can either give web developers a strong set of
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
I'm really hesitant to expose explicit locking to the Web platform.
Mutexes are incredibly hard to program with correctly, and we will surely
end
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.orgwrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
I think there are good applications for setting a long-lived lock. We can
try to make it hard for people to create those locks, but then the
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Robert O'Callahan
rob...@ocallahan.orgwrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
I think there are good applications for setting a long-lived lock.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Robert O'Callahan
rob...@ocallahan.orgwrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Darin Fisher
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Robert O'Callahan
rob...@ocallahan.orgwrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
I think there are good applications for setting a long-lived lock.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
rt oOn Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 6:35 PM, James Robinson jam...@google.comwrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.orgwrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.orgwrote:
+1, a nice refactoring of the implied locking gunk in the storage api.
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
The recent discussion about the storage mutex for Cookies and LocalStorage
got me thinking
Perhaps instead of trying to build implicit locking
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Darin Fisherda...@chromium.org wrote:
I imagine a simple lock API:
window.acquireLock(name)
window.releaseLock(name)
I do not think it is a good idea to allow long-lived (past a stack
frame) locks on the types of things we've been discussing (local
storage,
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Aaron Boodman a...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Darin Fisherda...@chromium.org wrote:
I imagine a simple lock API:
window.acquireLock(name)
window.releaseLock(name)
I do not think it is a good idea to allow long-lived (past a stack
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Darin Fisherda...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Aaron Boodman a...@google.com wrote:
There would presumably have to be a separate name value for each API,
though, right? So we're talking about the difference between:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Aaron Boodman a...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Darin Fisherda...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Aaron Boodman a...@google.com wrote:
There would presumably have to be a separate name value for each API,
though,
On Sep 9, 2009, at 10:55 AM, Darin Fisher wrote:
The recent discussion about the storage mutex for Cookies and
LocalStorage got me thinking
Perhaps instead of trying to build implicit locking into those
features, we should give web apps the tools to manage exclusive
access to shared
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Sep 9, 2009, at 10:55 AM, Darin Fisher wrote:
The recent discussion about the storage mutex for Cookies and LocalStorage
got me thinking
Perhaps instead of trying to build implicit locking into those features,
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 6:37 AM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
Yes, exactly. Sorry for not making this clear. I believe implicit locking
for LocalStorage (and the implicit unlocking) is going to yield something
very confusing and hard to implement well. The potential for dead locks
On 9/10/09 2:24 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 6:37 AM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org
mailto:da...@chromium.org wrote:
Yes, exactly. Sorry for not making this clear. I believe implicit
locking for LocalStorage (and the implicit unlocking) is going to
yield
In general this seems like a pretty interesting idea. It definitely would
be nice to completely abstract away all concepts of concurrency from web
developers, but some of our solutions thus far (message passing, async
interfaces, etc) have not been terribly appreciated by developers either.
The
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Aaron Boodmana...@google.com wrote:
I see.
So you are suggesting the localStorage could have zero concurrency
guarantees and it is simply up to the developer to arrange things
themselves using this new primitive.
That is an interesting idea. You're right
If this feature existed, we likely would have used it for offline Gmail to
coordinate which instance of the app (page with gmail in it) should be
responsible for sync'ing the local database with the mail service. In the
absence of a feature like this, instead we used the local database itself to
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
In general this seems like a pretty interesting idea. It definitely would
be nice to completely abstract away all concepts of concurrency from web
developers, but some of our solutions thus far (message passing, async
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Michael Nordman micha...@google.comwrote:
If this feature existed, we likely would have used it for offline Gmail to
coordinate which instance of the app (page with gmail in it) should be
responsible for sync'ing the local database with the mail service. In the
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.orgwrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 6:37 AM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
Yes, exactly. Sorry for not making this clear. I believe implicit locking
for LocalStorage (and the implicit unlocking) is going to yield
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
What concerns me are the cases where synchronous events (e.g., resizing an
iframe) can cause script to execute in another domain. As spec'd, there is
a potential dead lock with the storage mutex. We must carefully unlock
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 9:07 PM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.orgwrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
What concerns me are the cases where synchronous events (e.g., resizing an
iframe) can cause script to execute in another domain. As spec'd,
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Aaron Boodman a...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Aaron Boodmana...@google.com wrote:
I see.
So you are suggesting the localStorage could have zero concurrency
guarantees and it is simply up to the developer to arrange things
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Aaron Boodman a...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Aaron Boodmana...@google.com wrote:
I see.
So you are suggesting the localStorage could have zero concurrency
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 9:07 PM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.orgwrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
What concerns me are the cases where synchronous events (e.g., resizing
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Aaron Boodman a...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Aaron Boodmana...@google.com wrote:
I see.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
Imagine if you script a plugin inside the transaction, and before
returning, the plugin scripts another window,
I'm curious, how common is that anyway? Can we just tell plugins not to do
that, and abort any plugin that
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Aaron Boodman a...@google.com wrote:
On
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.orgwrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 9:07 PM, Robert O'Callahan
rob...@ocallahan.orgwrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Darin Fisher
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.orgwrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
Imagine if you script a plugin inside the transaction, and before
returning, the plugin scripts another window,
I'm curious, how common is
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Darin Fisherda...@chromium.org wrote:
If I call showModalDialog from within a database transaction, and then
showModalDialog
tries to create another database transaction, should I expect that the
transaction
can be started within the nested run loop of the
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:01 PM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.orgwrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Robert O'Callahan
rob...@ocallahan.orgwrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Darin Fisher
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:03 PM, Aaron Boodman a...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Darin Fisherda...@chromium.org wrote:
If I call showModalDialog from within a database transaction, and then
showModalDialog
tries to create another database transaction, should I expect
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.orgwrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
Imagine if you script a plugin inside the transaction, and before
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Darin Fisherda...@chromium.org wrote:
Well, the problem is that the creator of the transaction and the code
associated with the showModalDialog call may not be related. The
showModalDialog code might normally be used outside the context of a
transaction, in
52 matches
Mail list logo
