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

Re: [IndexedDB] Implicit transactions

From: Mikeal Rogers <mikeal.rogers@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 12:31:06 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinEGGFVRVDOPjjkOLZ4G2x+ptOnh6mF91Pn9TOU@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shawn Wilsher <sdwilsh@mozilla.com>
Cc: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
For what it's worth I haven't found using it this way to be that hard or
confusing but that could be because I'm a little more aware of the
underlying implications when opening object stores.

-Mikeal

On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Shawn Wilsher <sdwilsh@mozilla.com> wrote:

>  On 8/4/2010 10:53 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Whoa....transaction() is synchronous?!?  Ok, so I guess the entire premise
>> of my question was super confused.  :-)
>>
>>  It is certainly spec'd that way [1].  The locks do not get acquired until
> the first actual bit of work is done though.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Shawn
>
> [1]
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndexedDB/raw-file/tip/Overview.html#database-interface
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 4 August 2010 19:31:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:40 GMT