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

Re: [IndexedDB] Current editor's draft

From: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 17:28:26 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTilxWznMHFWW7tP0Fx5j-58yFlaBfD9nLI5aqg6L@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>, Pablo Castro <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>, Nikunj Mehta <nikunj@o-micron.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:20 AM, Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I would like to propose that we update the current spec to reflect all
>> the changes we have agreement on. We can then iteratively review and
>> make edits as soon as the remaining issues are solved.  Concretely, I
>> would like to check in a fix for
>> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9975
>> with the following two exceptions which, based on the feedback in this
>> thread, require more discussion:
>> - leave in support for dynamic transactions but add a separate API for
>> it, as suggested by Jonas earlier in this thread.
>> - leave in the explicit transaction commit
>> - leave in nested transactions
>> The changes in 9975 have been debated for more than two month now, so
>> I feel it's about time to update the specification so that it's in
>> line with what we're actually discussing.
> When you say "leave in the explicit transaction commit", do you mean
> in addition to the implicit commit one there are no more requests on a
> transaction, or instead of it?

In addition. In the current editor draft we have both:

Implicit commit is described at:

Explicit commit is defined at

I was saying I would not remove the explicit one pending further discussion.

Received on Wednesday, 14 July 2010 16:28:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 February 2015 14:36:44 UTC