Re: [IndexedDB] Current editor's draft

  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