- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 15:31:42 -0700
- To: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
- Cc: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>, Shawn Wilsher <sdwilsh@mozilla.com>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:15 PM, Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> wrote: >> > I'm pretty sure opening a database with a different description is >> > actually >> > already specified: the new one takes precedent. Take a look at the >> > algorithm for database opening; I'm pretty sure it's there. >> > When talking to Andrei earlier tonight I thought we'd probably want to >> > make >> > it optional, but now I'm thinking maybe we shouldn't. You're right, >> > Shawn, >> > that the description can be useful for many reasons. And although it >> > seems >> > redundant for a developer to pass in the description every time, I >> > actually >> > can't think of any reason why a developer wouldn't want to. >> >> Actually, I think it's pretty inconvenient to have to specify a >> description every time, especially since I am not sure developers >> would want to change the description very often. I think we should >> allow a null string for future connections as Shawn suggested. > > How do developers distinguish between when they're opening a database for > the first time or not? Normally they'd look at the version, but that's not > available until _after_ you've supplied the description (and presumably some > UAs might have asked the user if it's OK or something like that). If the > spec has a way to enumerate databases (something we've talked about doing) > then it's possible that the developer could decide whether or not to pass in > a version string that way. But why would they do this? > So the only possible reason I could see for someone doing this is if they > open a database in several places in one page and they can > somehow guarantee that one of them happens first. The first question here > would be "but why?". And the second question is whether we trust users to > for sure know the ordering that things are opened. > On the other hand, it doesn't seem that hard to supply a description every > time it's opened. I mean you just define it in one places within your > script and use that. Or, better yet, just save the database to a variable > and call open once early on in initialization. That'll make things less > async anyway. > Am I missing something here? I have actually been thinking that it's likely fairly common to be opening a database in several different locations and know which ones should always be reopening an existing database. I don't have any data on this though. / Jonas
Received on Monday, 9 August 2010 22:32:34 UTC