- From: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 17:28:26 +0100
- 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: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndexedDB/raw-file/tip/Overview.html#dfn-transaction Explicit commit is defined at http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndexedDB/raw-file/tip/Overview.html#widl-IDBTransaction-commit I was saying I would not remove the explicit one pending further discussion. Thanks, Andrei
Received on Wednesday, 14 July 2010 16:28:56 UTC