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

Re: [IndexedDB] A "versionchangeblocked" event

From: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 06:29:38 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTinjw3cD=f+XVUcdSb9AUAVRiuXZ7DGmeYKDUjVq@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: ben turner <bent.mozilla@gmail.com>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 3:17 AM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> wrote:
> > Are we really sure this is needed?
> > I was just writing up a bug for this and started to wonder if we needed
> any
> > event when there no longer is a block.  I then realized that once you're
> > unblocked the onsuccess should fire immediately, so there's no need.  But
> > wait...isn't this true of normal blocking as well?  Basically either the
> > onsuccess will fire immediately or onblocked will.  So couldn't an app
> just
> > assume it's blocked until it receives a onsuccess message?  The worst
> case
> > is that the web app blinks up some message to the user to close other
> > windows, but it seems like that could happen even with an onblocked event
> > being added.  Am I missing something here?
>
> I guess it isn't strictly needed, pages can always install a timeout
> and cancel that timeout when the success event fires. But I think it
> might be worth having still since it's generally hard to get people do
> to proper error handling, and so it's extra important to make it easy
> for people to do so.
>

Hmmm.  Yeah, I guess I can buy that.

J
Received on Monday, 27 September 2010 10:30:33 GMT

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