[whatwg] Application defined "locks"
mike.shaver at gmail.com
Fri Sep 11 09:03:19 PDT 2009
You're right, my recollection is quite incorrect. My apologies for
unfairly describing the origin of the proposal.
Do you agree with Jeremy that Database is too far along in terms of
deployment to have significant changes made to it? Given that we're
still hashing our major philosophical elements with respect to
transactionality and locking in parts of HTML5, I can imagine it being
quite desirable to make Database conform to whatever model we settle
on. "Does the localStorage mutex plus onbeforeunload plus Database
transaction collision equal deadlock?", etc.
(I have other concerns with Database, but they are higher-level and
therefore likely less compelling to its advocates. :-) )
On 9/11/09, Aaron Boodman <aa at google.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 6:45 AM, Mike Shaver <mike.shaver at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm especially concerned to hear you say that DB is basically done,
>> since as far as I can tell it just came over the wall and into
>> HTML5-land as a description of what Gears had already implemented and
>> shipped, not through any of the sorts of "is this the right model for
>> the web?", "what problems are we trying to solve?" analysis that
>> characterizes most of the conversations here.
> That isn't true at all. HTML5 database is completely different and
> incompatible with what's in Gears. It is a big improvement (imo).
> For a reminder, here is the Gears API:
> - a
Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
More information about the whatwg