W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: [IndexedDB] Current editor's draft

From: Shawn Wilsher <sdwilsh@mozilla.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 15:47:18 -0700
Message-ID: <4C3503F6.9080301@mozilla.com>
To: Nikunj Mehta <nikunj@o-micron.com>
CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
  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 to the database. Thirdly, we shouldn't
> need to change version in order to perform database changes. Finally, I am
> not sure why you consider the syntax proposal simpler. Note that I am not
> averse to the version change event notification.
In what use case would you want to change the database structure without 
modifying the version?  That almost seems like a footgun for consumers.


Cheers,

Shawn



Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 22:47:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:39 GMT