- From: David Grogan <dgrogan@chromium.org>
- Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 16:09:30 -0700
- To: Kyle Huey <me@kylehuey.com>
- Cc: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAOZbSt0k2jAKp5Cyi4Cbc-=RJPMdW-jhoB2zfdJu83FK-5xcUg@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:01 PM, David Grogan <dgrogan@chromium.org> wrote: > jsbell pointed out an annoyance with this approach. If we delete the > entire backing store while opening a database, we can alert the page that > that particular database was lost via the mechanism discussed in this > thread. > To clarify, chromium stores all databases for an origin in a single leveldb instance, so this is a real possibility for us. > But if there are two databases lost then the opener of the second one is > out of luck: when a request is made to open the second database, e.g. a day > later, IDB won't know that it once existed so won't know to alert the page. > Meaning that we can only provide this notification on a best-effort basis. > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Kyle Huey <me@kylehuey.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 1:49 PM, David Grogan <dgrogan@chromium.org>wrote: >> >>> I think the answer to that question impacts how we design this. >>>> >>> >>> I'm assuming you mean because a surgical recovery could leave the >>> version intact and make a new property on the upgradeneeded event >>> inaccessible? In that case we could also put the property on the success >>> event that comes in response to open(). >>> >> >> Well I was thinking more like being able to recover one object store and >> not others. But this does raise an interesting question. If we can >> restore to the same db version, but not identical contents, how would we >> indicate that to the page? Is there anything more useful we can provide >> than "someDataWasLost=true"? Doesn't seem like it. >> > > Given that we can probably only provide a notification on a best-effort > basis it would seem silly to try to provide a detailed message in those > times where we did notify. > > >> - Kyle >> >> (Sorry for the delay responding, been on vacation). >> > >
Received on Thursday, 9 May 2013 23:10:17 UTC