- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 06:56:52 -0500
- To: ext Miko Nieminen <miko.nieminen@iki.fi>
- CC: www-tag@w3.org
On 2/13/13 6:39 AM, ext Miko Nieminen wrote: > I think IndexedDB is almost good enough for writing all kinds of > abstractions and reusable libraries on top of it. Only major issue I'm > having is the lack of ability to listen add, modify, delete events > through object store. This makes writing additional abstractions > unnecessarily painful when keeping things in-sync requires routing > notifications through local storage or other similar mechanism. > > So to raise my original question: what do you think, do I have any > realistic chances to get forward with this change? I can't speak to the probability of success, but you could followup on your related February 5 post to WebApps [1] with a bug report [2] to add your proposed functionality. (If you need help creating that bug, please contact me off-list.) FYI, I suspect most of the active contributors to the IDB spec (including implementers) would not support adding this feature to v1 but I don't see any harm in proposing it for v.next. -AB [1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013JanMar/0246.html> [2] <http://tinyurl.com/Bugz-IndexedDB>
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2013 11:57:27 UTC