- From: Nikunj Mehta <nikunj@o-micron.com>
- Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 00:14:56 +0530
- To: Shawn Wilsher <sdwilsh@mozilla.com>
- Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
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 UTC