Closed
Bug 726378
Opened 13 years ago
Closed 12 years ago
Unprefix IndexedDB
Categories
(Core :: Storage: IndexedDB, defect)
Core
Storage: IndexedDB
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla16
People
(Reporter: khuey, Assigned: khuey)
References
Details
(Keywords: dev-doc-complete)
Attachments
(1 file, 1 obsolete file)
(deleted),
patch
|
sicking
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
No description provided.
Comment 1•13 years ago
|
||
So if this lands, should I use something like db.mozCreateFile() in writable files patch ?
Yeah. And we should moz-prefix getAll.
However I don't think we should fix this bug at least until our error handling has improved to match that of the spec.
Comment 3•13 years ago
|
||
About getAll : I use it
Comment 4•13 years ago
|
||
About get All :
I use it in production, in a real world application (used by more than 1000 people), and it proved to be a really useful method.
It's both really fast (compared to cursor iteration) and very handy.
I would definitely advocate keeping it, whether it will be in the spec one day or not.
Just my 2 cents... thanks.
Maxime: No-one is suggesting we remove it. I'm just saying we should prefix it until it's in spec.
Assignee | ||
Updated•13 years ago
|
Component: DOM → DOM: IndexedDB
Version: Trunk → unspecified
Depends on: 758357
Depends on: 664029
Depends on: 759970
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•12 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 637200 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch
Review of attachment 637200 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
You need to prefix getAll and getAllKeys at the same time too.
Attachment #637200 -
Flags: review?(bent.mozilla) → review-
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•12 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 637200 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch
I don't think we should prefix those methods. There's only one reasonable thing they can do, so I don't think we're constraining the future spec in any meaningful way by doing this.
Attachment #637200 -
Flags: review- → review?(bent.mozilla)
(In reply to Kyle Huey [:khuey] (khuey@mozilla.com) from comment #8)
I'm with sicking on this. It's unlikely, but something like switching the order of the two optional args could happen. Or something we can't predict. And we should set a good example.
Depends on: 769356
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•12 years ago
|
||
I'm still not thrilled about this, but here's the patch.
Attachment #637200 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #637200 -
Flags: review?(bent.mozilla)
Attachment #637763 -
Flags: review?(jonas)
Comment on attachment 637763 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch
Review of attachment 637763 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
r=me, but we should only check this in once all dependencies are fixed.
Attachment #637763 -
Flags: review?(jonas) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 12•12 years ago
|
||
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 12 years ago
Flags: in-testsuite+
Keywords: dev-doc-needed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla16
No longer depends on: 754142
Comment 13•12 years ago
|
||
Unfortunately I had to backout bug 758357 due to it causing bug 770085, so I assume that Jonas' requirement that all dependencies be fixed before we ship this are now no longer upheld...
Comment 14•10 years ago
|
||
All pages of doc have been unprefixed long ago + info up-to-date on https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Firefox/Releases/16#API.2FDOM
Keywords: dev-doc-needed → dev-doc-complete
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•