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: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 12:46:22 -0700
Message-ID: <278fd46c0907251246p4833ed83l16a445c77418af61@mail.gmail.com>
To: Laxmi Narsimha Rao Oruganti <Laxmi.Oruganti@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Nikunj R. Mehta" <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Laxmi Narsimha Rao
Oruganti<Laxmi.Oruganti@microsoft.com> wrote:
> There seems to be Update Loss issue here.  If the UI thread which is supposed to enqueue the statements was scheduled out in the middle of a transaction block.  And the background thread got scheduled in, consumed the already queued items alone part of transaction and committed.  That means, we have lost atomicity right.  I am sure spec did not intend this.

There is no update loss issue.

Assuming the implementation used threads (it could use a separate
process, too), after each statement is run on the background thread,
if it has any callbacks, those callbacks are run on the UI thread
[4.3.2 Step 6.5].

The transaction is not committed until all queued statements and their
associated callbacks have run. Since it is only valid to queue
statements within SQLTransactionCallback, SQLStatementCallback, or
SQLStatementErrorCallback [4.3.1 Step 1], and the background thread
waits for those callbacks to complete, there is no race.

- a
Received on Saturday, 25 July 2009 19:47:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:33 GMT