- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:44:48 -0700
- 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