W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: [WebStorage] Concerns on spec section 'Processing Model'

From: Aaron Boodman <aa@google.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:15:10 -0700
Message-ID: <278fd46c0907241815w71c54242r1027845b3b543657@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Nikunj R. Mehta" <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Laxmi Narsimha Rao Oruganti <Laxmi.Oruganti@microsoft.com>
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta<nikunj.mehta@oracle.com> wrote:
> I am not proposing to take away your choice. But please don't take away
> mine.
> It would be useful to see an explanation as to why the proposal I made
> [[
> add an isolation level parameter with a default value of SERIALIZABLE and
> remove the exclusive database-level write lock requirement
> ]]
> is worse than the current spec text. You can refer to SQL92 explain the
> meaning of SERIALIZABLE. AFAIK, there are no interoperability problems with
> transaction isolation levels.

I'm personally not opposed to adding more isolation levels in addition
to the current single option of SERIALIZABLE. It could be added as an
argument to transaction().

I don't think it is a particularly high value feature, but I also
don't see a big problem with it. And I can imagine that some
particularly ambitious developers might want to take advantage of it.

- a
Received on Saturday, 25 July 2009 01:15:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:18 UTC