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

Re: [IndexedDB] Current editor's draft

From: Nikunj Mehta <nikunj@o-micron.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 00:14:56 +0530
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F2FA42B5-3B10-44B4-BFE8-C6A23221140B@o-micron.com>
To: Shawn Wilsher <sdwilsh@mozilla.com>

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 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.
> 

Can you justify your conclusion? 
Received on Friday, 9 July 2010 19:10:01 GMT

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