W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2010

[Bug 9796] New: IndexedDB's async interface should be available within workers

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 10:33:21 +0000
To: public-webapps@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-9796-2927@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9796

           Summary: IndexedDB's async interface should be available within
                    workers
           Product: WebAppsWG
           Version: unspecified
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Indexed Database API
        AssignedTo: nikunj.mehta@oracle.com
        ReportedBy: jorlow@chromium.org
         QAContact: member-webapi-cvs@w3.org
                CC: mike@w3.org, public-webapps@w3.org


Pablo originally suggested this in "[IndexedDB] Detailed comments for the
current draft" [1]: "Currently the async API is only available on the window
object and not to workers. Libraries are likely to target only one mode, in
particular async, to work across all scenarios. So it would be important to
have async also in workers."

As far as I can tell, no one has ever disagreed with this comment and recently
it came up again late in the "[IndexedDB] Proposal for async API changes"
thread [2].

>On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Shawn Wilsher <sdwilsh@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> On 5/20/2010 12:19 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>> I additionally like the naming convention. The async interfaces is
>>> probably the interface that people will use first. Additionally that
>>> interface is available both to workers and to the main thread. So it
>>> makes sense to give the async interface the simpler name.
>>
>> That is not how it is currently specified (and our proposal doesn't
>> indicate either way).  The asynchronous versions are not available to worker
>> threads.  I do recall discussion on this, however...

That makes Mozilla, Google, and Microsoft all in favor of this feature.  We
should do it.

There's one small snag though: the current spec has an "indexedDB" property on
Window and WorkerUtils that point to different interfaces (one sync, one not). 
We should probably change WorkerUtils.indexedDB to WorkerUtils.indexedDBSync to
be more inline with what other synchronous APIs have done (that have an async
counterpart).

[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/public-webapps@w3.org/msg07386.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0806.html

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 22 May 2010 10:33:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:38 GMT