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

Re: [IndexedDB] Current editor's draft

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:44:48 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTilCW81o2UGmwb0HgpkqYRdXA3STznn4zdewj_qK@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
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 9:28 AM, Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com> wrote:
> 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.

Makes sense, thanks for clarifying.

/ Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 14 July 2010 16:45:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:10 UTC