W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: [IndexedDB] Atomic schema changes

From: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 19:44:56 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTin7SG9WtoM37MiOqhn75sysp22ymeuhvA86BGUx@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Mikeal Rogers <mikeal.rogers@gmail.com>
Cc: Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 2:43 AM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> wrote:
> >> > I'm OK with making createObjectStore/createIndex synchronous.  It
> would
> >> > definitely make such code cleaner and I don't see a major downside,
> but
> >> > at
> >> > the same time I feel like this API is starting to get kind of ad-hoc
> and
> >> > unintuitive to a new user.  Having the create and the remove functions
> >> > completely different and in different places seems weird.
> >> > So I agree with either A or leaving things as originally proposed by
> >> > Jonas
> >> > in "[IndexDB] Proposal for async API changes".
> >>
> >> Well, there's no reason not to make the same changes to
> >> removeObjectStore/removeIndex. Though the more I think with this
> >> design createObjectStore and removeObjectStore can stay on IDBDatabase
> >> and simply throw if called outside the appropriate transaction
> >> callback.
> >>
> >> Here is the revised proposal:
> >>
> >> interface IDBDatabase {
> >>    ...
> >>    IDBObjectStore createObjectStore (in DOMString name, in optional
> >> DOMString keyPath, in optional boolean autoIncrement);
> >>    void removeObjectStore (in DOMString storeName);
> >>    ...
> >> };
> >>
> >> interface IDBObjectStore {
> >>    ...
> >>    IDBIndex createIndex (in DOMString name, in DOMString keyPath, in
> >> optional boolean unique);
> >>    IDBRequest removeIndex (in DOMString indexName);
> >>    ...
> >> };
> >>
> >> Where createObjecStore/createIndex throws if a objectStore or index of
> >> the given name already exists, if the keyPath has an invalid syntax,
> >> or if the function is called when not inside a version-change
> >> transaction callback. And removeObjectStore/removeIndex throws if the
> >> objectStore or index doesn't exist or if the function is called when
> >> not inside a version-change transaction callback.
> >>
> >> Throwing if not inside the right type of callback isn't a super clean
> >> solution, but is really not that different from how add/put throws if
> >> called when not inside a READ_WRITE transaction.
> >
> > Just to be clear, no async function (one that returns an IDBRequest)
> should
> > _ever_ throw.  (They should only call onerror.)  I assume you didn't mean
> > "add/put throws" literally?
>
> Well, there's no reason we couldn't make add/put throw if called from
> inside the wrong type of transaction. I guess I don't feel strongly
> about it, but it seems to me that calling put from inside a READ_ONLY
> transaction is a much bigger mistake than writing a duplicate key or
> running out of disc space. Additionally it's a situation where we
> synchronously know that there is a bug in the program.
>

When this came up before, the thought was that it'd be confusing to web
developers which errors would raise immediately and which would call the
error callback.  My feeling is that consistency is more useful than raising
right away for errors like this.  (Plus, if we find it hard to get web
developers to do any error checking, it seems even harder to get them to do
it in 2 ways.  :-)


> >> > But, I feel pretty strongly that a setVersion/schema change
> transaction
> >> > should not simply kill off anything else currently running.  The
> reason
> >> > is
> >> > that it's not hard for apps to recover from a connection failing, but
> it
> >> > is
> >> > hard to handle a transaction failing in an unpredictable way.
> >> >  Especially
> >> > static transactions (which should rarely fail committing since
> >> > serialization
> >> > can be guaranteed before the transaction starts).
> >>
> >> That might be a good idea for v1. I was planning on doing a separate
> >> thread for setVersion, but maybe it's tied enough to the topic of
> >> schema changes that it makes sense to bring up here.
> >>
> >> What I suggest is that when setVersion is called, we fire
> >> 'versionchange' event on all other open IDBDatabase objects. This
> >> event contains information of what the desired new version number is.
> >> If no other IDBDatabase objects are open for the specific database, no
> >> 'versionchange' events are fired. This allows pages using the old
> >> schema version to automatically save any pending data (for example any
> >> draft emails) and display UI to the user suggesting that the tab be
> >> closed. If possible without dataloss, the tab could even reload itself
> >> to automatically load an updated version of the page which uses the
> >> new schema version.
> >>
> >> The 'versionchange' event would use an interface like
> >>
> >> interface IDBVersionEvent : IDBEvent {
> >>  readonly attribute string version;
> >> };
> >
> > First of all, what I was originally advocating (sorry for not being
> clear)
> > is that we should kill the database connection but not until all active
> > transactions are complete.  Though we should probably block new
> transactions
> > from starting once setVersion is called.
> > But I really like your versionchange event idea regardless.  I agree that
> > letting the app sync any data that might be in memory (for example, a
> draft
> > email) is important.  And the idea that the web app could refresh itself
> (or
> > download new application code or something) seems pretty cool and useful.
> >  I'm fine with it firing on all frames except the one that initiated
> (like
> > storage events).  If we go with the "kill the connection once all active
> > transactions are done and block new ones from starting", we'd want to
> start
> > the blocking only after all versionchange events have finished.
> > The main reason that I like the idea of not stating the version change
> until
> > all active connections have closed is that not all apps will handle
> > versionchange.  My original idea was that we should just break such web
> apps
> > and let the user refresh, but now that you've pointed out the potential
> for
> > data loss I'm not sure that's an option.  Savvy web apps can kill all
> > existing database connections when they get the versionchange and thus
> avoid
> > stalling things.
> >
> >> Additionally, if there are open IDBDatabase objects, we fire a
> >> 'blocked' event at the IDBRequest object returned from the setVersion
> >> call. This allows the page to display UI to the user asking the user
> >> to close all other relevant tabs.
> >>
> >> Once all other IDBDatabase objects are closed, we create a transaction
> >> and fire the normal 'success' event.
> >>
> >> While there are pending version change requests, no success events are
> >> fired for calls to IDBFactory.open for the relevant database.
> >>
> >> We might want to support forcefully killing off open IDBDatabase
> >> objects in the future, but I think that can wait until after v1.
> >
> > Really?  I can't see an app like gmail ever asking users to close tabs.
>  I
> > bet they'd sooner run all the application logic in an iframe and navigate
> it
> > away when doing a schema change.
> > And I don't see many people correctly implementing a blocked event
> handler.
> >  If anything, it should be an error code.
> > It doesn't seem that hard to have an explicit way to tell the database
> > explicitly "OK, I'm done".  Or, at very least, we could make it so that
> when
> > there's an existing setVersion happening, all new connection requests
> stall.
> >  That way all pages can reload themselves but they won't connect to the
> > database until the upgrade is complete.
> > But really...all of this is really hacky.  I'm starting to wonder if we
> > should just kill the database connections on a setVersion as I originally
> > tried to suggest.
>
> I'm pretty concerned though that sites will need to take asynchronous
> actions in order to save all required data. While gmail happily
> automatically saves every few minutes, and presumably could
> immediately do so upon a 'versionchange' event, I don't think all
> editors are willing t. For example many editors ask the user if they
> want to save the current changes when they are closed, in order to not
> overwrite correct data.
>
> Additionally, there is always the risk that developers will forget to
> use a versionchange event handler to protect their data. I think a
> good design principal is that if sites do the minimal amount of work,
> that should default to safe behavior.
>
> I do realize that not all applications are willing to do the "please
> close all other tabs" UI thing. But for those we would provide enough
> tools do something better. If we add a IDBDatabase.close() function
> then applications that can easily emulate the "force-close open
> connections" using that and the versionchange event. And they could
> even use that to implement asynchronous data saving for when that is
> required.
>

Yeah.  I think giving developers a .close() (or maybe even a
.closeOthers()?) should be enough.  It still feels clunky to me, but I also
think it'd be dangerous to over-design this without some feedback from
several developers using this in the real world...which won't happen until
we ship something (even if its basic).



On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Mikeal Rogers <mikeal.rogers@gmail.com>
 wrote:

> In IDBCouch I don't have a "schema" but I do have to maintain
> consistency of the by-sequence index which is a similar problem to
> validating schema state before these kinds of operations.
>
> What I'm currently doing is just starting each write transaction with
> a lookup to the end of the by-sequence index to make sure the
> lastSequence I have is, in fact, the current one and another
> tab/window hasn't updated it.
>
> My plan for view generation is a similar problem and I plan to solve
> it with a an objectStore of meta information about all of the views.
> Storing the last known sequence and conflict resolution information
> about replicas is also a similar problem and I'll solve it the same
> way with a meta objectStore.
>
> I don't see why schema information couldn't also be stored in a meta
> objectStore at the end transactions that modify it and all of these
> higher level APIs could just start their transaction with a validation
> of the meta info. Rather than trying to keep the information globally
> and updating it with an event you can just validate it at the
> beginning of each transaction. The overhead is minimal and it seems,
> to me at least, to be a little less error prone.
>

When we're talking about schema, we're not talking about the internal
structure of an objectStore (though some web developers may also choose to
use the version number to represent this).  We're mainly talking about the
structure of objectStore and index objects.  As far as I can tell, this
structure will change infrequently (though I doubt never) for IDBCouch, but
the way that you use the actual objectStores and indexes may change more
frequently.

Am I understanding you correctly?  If not, do you have any doc that you
could point me to to better understand how IDBCouch works?

J
Received on Saturday, 26 June 2010 18:45:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:39 GMT