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

Re: [IndexedDB] setVersion with multiple IDBDatabase objects

From: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:00:12 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTimL_aXtU-N9dfxtk3TMPP9ogyhLVVXusCJ49cSJ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shawn Wilsher <sdwilsh@mozilla.com>
Cc: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
I guess I should have mentioned that I too am in favor of it being tied to
an instance.  I think this matches the model we use elsewhere in terms of
transactions being tied to specific objectStore and index instances.

J

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Shawn Wilsher <sdwilsh@mozilla.com> wrote:

> On 9/28/2010 7:42 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>
>> What do we want to do if the user calls window.indexedDB.open("myDB",
>> "some
>> description") twice and stores the result as db1 and db2, calls
>> db1.setVersion(), and then in the success handler does
>> db2.createObjectStore?  In other words, is the setVersion transaction tied
>> to the database instance that setVersion was called on, or is it available
>> to any instance/object that points to that particular database for that
>> particular origin in that particular page/worker?
>>
> While I can see an argument either way, I think I'd prefer it to be tied to
> the instance.  I like this because then it works the same as it does being
> in different windows.  I don't have a strong opinion on this though.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Shawn
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 28 September 2010 15:01:04 GMT

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