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 :). > > In fact, the many design changes to the database API were made > precisely because they made it more webby, within the constraints of > being SQL-based. As on example, the fully asynchronous API was done to > avoid blocking the UI thead, something that is important for web > browsers. All of this played out on the WhatWG mailing list over > several months with input from many vendors, but admittedly, mostly > Google and Apple (not for want of other input -- just because we > seemed to be the two that most wanted this feature). > > > 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 philosophical elements with respect to > > transactionality and locking in parts of HTML5, I can imagine it being > > quite desirable to make Database conform to whatever model we settle > > on. "Does the localStorage mutex plus onbeforeunload plus Database > > transaction collision equal deadlock?", etc. > > I don't think that is what Jeremy was saying (emphasis mine): > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 1:26 AM, Jeremy Orlow <jor...@chromium.org> wrote: > > In theory. In practice, once a vendor has shipped something, it's > somewhat > > sacred. Once multiple have, it's even more so. ****This is somewhat > > unfortunate, in my opinion, since very few people are using localStorage > or > > DB yet****, but it's now very difficult to correct even major problems in > the > > spec. > > Picking another message from very early in the other thread that > spawned this one: > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Jeremy Orlow <jor...@chromium.org> wrote: > > First of all, I'm not sure I agree that we're at the point where > > breaking compatibility is impossible. It really doesn't seem like it's > > terribly widely used, and what's implemented is based on an early draft > of > > the spec. Yes, I agree that it's really unfortunate we didn't iron these > > problems out better before everyone implemented it, but if LocalStorage > > changed today, it definitely wouldn't break the web. (Of course, it's > > possible that we would be breaking the web by the time the next gen of > the > > major browsers ship.....it's hard to know for sure.) > > Throughout, he has reiterated his belief that we are *not* too far > along to change the design. > Exactly. I think there are some major design flaws and that we should correct them. It's others who are saying the current designs, though majorly flawed, are too entrenched to change.
