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

Re: [IndexedDB] Calling setVersion while already in a setVersion transaction

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 14:59:07 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTim6iBwD9EfmADD=Mu2hs_uvK1AgwRA60VsHaEYW@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
Cc: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> wrote:
> What should we do when setVersion is called while a setVersion transaction
> is currently active?
> Off the top of my head, I can think of two behaviors we might want to spec:
>  1) Have the subsequent setVersion simply throw an error.  2) Have the
> subsequent setVersion adopt the existing setVersion transaction and change
> the version.  (i.e. whatever the last setVersion call sets as the version
> string will win.)  Any others?  What do you guys think is the most sane
> behavior?

My initial reaction was

3) Schedule another version transaction which is started after the
currently running version transaction (and any other already scheduled
transactions) are done running.

That was actually my initial reaction, though that is biased by what
our implementation naturally would do unless special care is taken to
do something else.

In general I don't feel strongly either way and am fine with all
currently proposed solutions.

/ Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 29 September 2010 22:00:01 GMT

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