Re: [IndexedDB] Current editor's draft

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