W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: [IndexedDB] Should .add/.put/.update throw when called in read-only transaction?

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 14:26:20 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTimvbtUKSfkhXjqWEXPYnNFMriKcOaVxHv6ggjvl@mail.gmail.com>
To: ben turner <bent@mozilla.com>
Cc: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Replying to get Ben's email to the list as it seems to be stuck in moderation...

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 1:38 PM, ben turner <bent@mozilla.com> wrote:
> I would also point out that throwing exceptions at the call site makes
> debugging much easier in my opinion. Our error events currently don't
> include information like filename and line number where the failing
> request was generated (though I think we should add that eventually).
> Exceptions are much easier to track down, diagnose, and fix.
>
> -Ben
>
> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 2:03 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> wrote:
>>> I've thought about this more and have some additional doubts inline.
>>> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> wrote:
>>>> > On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Hi All,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Currently the IndexedDB specification is silent on what should happen
>>>> >> if IDBObjectStore.add, IDBObjectStore.put, IDBObjectStore.remove,
>>>> >> IDBCursor.update or IDBCursor.remove() is called from a READ_ONLY
>>>> >> transaction. There are two possible ways we can handle this:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> 1. We can throw an exception.
>>>> >> 2. We can return a IDBRequest object and asynchronously fire a 'error'
>>>> >> event on this object.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The advantage of 1 is that we pretty much know that this was an error
>>>> >> due to a bug in the web page,
>>>
>>> I don't see why this is compelling.  Many of the other errors that you still
>>> propose we fire via the callback are due to bugs in the page.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> >> and we can always know this
>>>> >> synchronously without having to consult the database.
>>>
>>> So?  Just because we can doesn't mean we should.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> >> Throwing an
>>>> >> error means that all the existing infrastructure for error handling
>>>> >> with automatically kick in. For example any higher-level try/catch
>>>> >> constructs will have an opportunity to catch the error.
>>>> >> Implementations generally report uncaught exceptions to an error log.
>>>> >> The browser will fire an 'error' event on the window which the page
>>>> >> can use for further logging. Firing an error event on the other hand
>>>> >> does not allow the browser to automatically log the error in a console
>>>> >> as the page hasn't yet gotten a chance to handle it.
>>>
>>> Sure, but this doesn't help the majority of error conditions in IndexedDB.
>>>  It also ignores the cost of handling errors in 2 different ways.
>>
>> I'm arguing that people generally won't want to check for all types of
>> errors, such as writing in a READ_ONLY transaction. Compare to the
>> Node.appendChild function which throws for a number of conditions, yet
>> I've never seen anyone put a "try" around it and check for
>> HIERARCHY_REQUEST_ERR.
>>
>> Additionally, anything you do can likely in theory throw exceptions.
>> For example if you specify the wrong number of arguments or call a
>> function that doesn't exist, this will result in an exception. However
>> you rarely see people wrap "try" around calls to try to handle this
>> type of bugs.
>>
>> Another example is the line:
>>
>> db.objectStore("myObjectStore").get(53)
>>
>> can result in errors both being thrown and being reported as an error
>> event. If the objectStore "myObjectStore" doesn't exist, then the
>> .objectStore() call will return null and the js engine will throw due
>> to trying to call a function on a null value.
>>
>> Error checking is mostly useful when there are ways you can actually
>> handle the error. I think generally if someone calls .put during a
>> READ_ONLY transaction, they simply have a bug in their program and
>> there is little they can do in terms of "handling" that, short of
>> simply logging it.
>>
>>>> >> The advantage of 2 is that this is consistent with other error
>>>> >> conditions, such as writing duplicate keys, disk errors during writing
>>>> >> the database to disk, internal errors in the database, etc.
>>>
>>> The other problem is that users then need 2 sets of error handling routines
>>> for each call.  Given how difficult it is to get web developers to do any
>>> error checking, requiring 2 types of checks seems like a big downside.
>>
>> Actually, this is somewhat faulty math. With exceptions you can put a
>> try/catch high up in a call stack to catch errors from multiple
>> different locations. This will catch all errors thrown from all
>> function calls inside the try. Compare that to error events, which has
>> to be manually installed at every single request site. From this point
>> of view, the more errors we move to being reported as exceptions, the
>> more easily we're making it for developers to catch more errors.
>>
>> Javascript has a error reporting mechanism, exceptions. We should try
>> to make good use of it.
>>
>>>> >> While consistency, and only needing to check for errors one way, is
>>>> >> certainly good arguments, I would argue that people won't need to
>>>> >> check for calling-add-on-read-only-transactions. For properly written
>>>> >> code it's not an error that will occur, and thus there is no need to
>>>> >> check for it. In fact, you probably are generally better off letting
>>>> >> the exception bubble all the way up and get logged or caught by
>>>> >> generic error handlers.
>>>
>>> These are awfully bold assumptions.  Simply not catching the error is not an
>>> option for many web applications or libraries.  At very least, they'll need
>>> to add finally statements to handle such cases.
>>
>> How would one handle the case of .put being called on a READ_ONLY transaction?
>>
>>>> >> Additionally, the structured clone algorithm, which defines that an
>>>> >> exception should synchronously be thrown if the object is malformed,
>>>> >> for example if it consists of a cyclic graph. So .add/.put/.update can
>>>> >> already throw under certain circumstances.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Also compare to if we were using a different API strategy of making
>>>> >> objectStores and cursors returned from READ_ONLY transactions not have
>>>> >> mutating functions. In this case if someone tried to call .put(), that
>>>> >> also would result in a exception from the JS interpreter stating that
>>>> >> you're calling a function that doesn't exist.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> So I would argue that we should throw for at least all transaction
>>>> >> violations. I.e. whenever you try to perform an action not allowed by
>>>> >> the current transaction. This would also cover the case of calling
>>>> >> createObjectStore/removeObjectStore/createIndex/removeIndex during a
>>>> >> non-setVersion-transaction.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> There is also another case where synchronously know that an error will
>>>> >> be reported. We could throw when IDBCursor.update() is called when the
>>>> >> underlying object store uses in-line keys and the property at the key
>>>> >> path does not match the key in this cursor's position. In this case we
>>>> >> similarly immediately know that there is an error without having to
>>>> >> consult the database. We also generally can be sure that there is a
>>>> >> bug in the web page which would benefit from being reported like other
>>>> >> bugs are.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> And like stated above, IDBCursor.update() can already throw if the
>>>> >> passed in object can't be structurally cloned.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Jeremy previously asked if there was a test we could use to
>>>> >> clearly/intuitively break error conditions into two groups. Ones that
>>>> >> cause exceptions to be thrown, and ones that cause error events to be
>>>> >> fired. I would say that errors that do not depend on what data is in
>>>> >> the database, but rather are clearly due to errors at the call site
>>>> >> should throw an exception.
>>>> >
>>>> > This would limit us in the future in terms of schema changes.  The
>>>> > current
>>>> > async interface differs starting the transaction until the first call
>>>> > that
>>>> > accesses/modifies data (which are all async).  If we ever allow a schema
>>>> > change to happen without disconnecting all clients, it'd be possible
>>>> > that
>>>> > the objectStore could be deleted between when the call is made and when
>>>> > the
>>>> > transaction is actually allowed to start.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not quite following here. Even if we in the future allow
>>>> objectStores to be deleted while there are transactions open against
>>>> it, then .add/.put would still know if we're inside a READ_ONLY or
>>>> READ_WRITE transaction, no? And so could still throw an error if we're
>>>> in a READ_ONLY transaction.
>>>>
>>>> By the test defined above, .put would in that situation have to fire
>>>> an error event, rather than throw, if properly called on an READ_WRITE
>>>> transaction, but where the objectStore had been deleted. This because
>>>> we would have to check with the database if the objectStore was
>>>> deleted and thus would fail the "do not depend on what data is in the
>>>> database" check.
>>>
>>> I don't see how the existence of an objectStore can be considered "data".
>>>  Sure an objectStore _contains_ data and that data would no longer be
>>> accessible, but I don't see how the existence can be considered anything
>>> other than meta data.
>>
>> It's a matter of definition I guess. So change the rule to be:
>>
>> I would say that errors that do not depend on what information is in
>> the database, but rather are clearly due to errors at the call site
>> should throw an exception.
>>
>> If we're changing the APIs to allow for objectStores to be removed at
>> any time by another process, then the information of which
>> objectStores actually exist would only live in the database. (Which is
>> why I think that such an API would be a bad idea, but I realize of
>> course that that isn't your point and that this is just a hypothetical
>> example).
>>
>>>> > This also will limit what can be done on a background thread.  For
>>>> > example,
>>>> > an implementation couldn't do serialization of the object on a
>>>> > background
>>>> > thread (yes, if you did this, you'd need to make sure the main thread
>>>> > didn't
>>>> > modify it until it finished serializing).
>>>>
>>>> For what it's worth, HTML5 already defines that the structured clone
>>>> algorithm throws an exception, so that's not really something
>>>> introduced by me in this thread.
>>>
>>> Is there any technical reason this has to throw rather than raising the
>>> error through the callback?  I don't see one.  We already made the change to
>>> WebKit so that we can opt out of throwing on a serialization error.
>>
>> Both Worker.postMessage and History.pushState are defined to throw
>> exceptions when the structured clone algorithm fails. Despite both
>> likely communicating with other threads or processes and thus could
>> have benefitted from a theoretical off-main-thread serialization
>> implementation. I have not heard of anyone complaining that this is a
>> problem so far.
>>
>> Another reason to throw for an invalid object is that storing an
>> invalid value is something I could actually imagine being possible to
>> handle. For example code like:
>>
>> try {
>>  trans.objectStore("myStore").put(object);
>> }
>> catch (ex) {
>>  var backup = object.extraInfo;
>>  object.extraInfo = null;
>>  try {
>>    trans.objectStore("myStore").put(object);
>>  }
>>  finally {
>>    object.extraInfo = backup;
>>  }
>> }
>>
>> This would be much harder to implement using error events, while
>> keeping semantics exactly the same. For example you'd have to hope
>> that 'object' doesn't change between the initial call to put and the
>> error event firing.
>>
>>>> I also think that the problem you
>>>> describe in parenthesis effectively prevents you from doing background
>>>> serialization, at least without first copying so much data that you
>>>> could also perform the constraints checks at the same time.
>>>
>>> Some implementations might be able to copy on write efficiently.  You could
>>> also put a lock around the data, lock it before main thread execution begins
>>> again, and have the main thread take the lock before modifying the data.
>>> This was also just one example of processing that could be done in the
>>> background.  And even if none of them are very compelling, keep in mind that
>>> we're backing ourselves into a corner in terms of what we can add in the
>>> future (without breaking this heuristic).
>>
>> Both these sound highly theoretical. I have not heard of any efficient
>> scripting engine implementing either copy-on-write or
>> grab-lock-on-write. It seems like a lot of overhead to for each write
>> operation check if you need to execute copy or lock semantics. I'd
>> like to hear from a JS engine implementation that this is something
>> that is practically feasible before worrying too much about it.
>>
>> Also note that you'll still have to traverse the whole graph reachable
>> from the passed in object in order to mark that these objects should
>> have copy-on-write or grab-lock-on-write semantics. So while doing
>> that, it's fairly little overhead to also verify that the object can
>> be structurally cloned without spending the time actually serializing
>> it.
>>
>> Yes, we're limiting ourselves a little bit. However it's a limitation
>> we've accepted in other APIs (Worker.postMessage, History.pushState),
>> and so far this hasn't seemed to be a problem.
>>
>> Additionally, for each API we create, we're always adding limitations
>> for what we can do in the future. For example by defining that all
>> objectStores can be iterated and have a defined order, we're
>> preventing them from being implemented using hash tables. Of course we
>> should be careful, but so far lazy cloning seems pretty theoretical.
>>
>>>> > Because of these reasons, I'm not too excited about this particular
>>>> > heuristic for when to throw vs fire an error callback.  I've thought
>>>> > about
>>>> > it a bit and can't think of anything better though, unfortunately.
>>>> > I think I'm still slightly in favor of routing all errors through
>>>> > onerror
>>>> > callbacks and never throwing from a function that returns an IDBResult,
>>>> > but
>>>> > I think there were some good points brought up by Jonas for why throwing
>>>> > on
>>>> > some errors would make sense.
>>>>
>>>> I think HTML5 already forces us to make .put/.add/.update throw in
>>>> certain circumstances. And I think the benefits that come with
>>>> exception handling outweigh the theoretical possibility of performing
>>>> the structured clone in a background thread.
>>>
>>> As I mentioned earlier in the thread, these were examples of small problems
>>> in the current spec that I expect will really come back to bite us in the
>>> future as we try to add more complex features.
>>
>> Other than the structured clone example, can you point to any other
>> way that this could really bite us?
>>
>>> And I'm not convinced HTML5 forces us to do anything.
>>
>> I agree that that's true.
>>
>> / Jonas
>>
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2010 21:27:16 GMT

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