W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: [IndexedDB] Do we need a timeout for VERSION_CHANGE?

From: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 10:35:19 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTin=NV6QmGN1mtfiz3syNunHZoiA4oUj=-frrkXA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pablo Castro <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>
Cc: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
In another thread (in the last couple days) we actually decided to remove
timeouts from normal transactions since they can be implemented as a
setTimeout+abort.

But I agree that we need a way to abort setVersion transactions before
getting the callback (so that we implement timeouts for them as well).
 Unfortunately, I don't immediately have any good ideas on how to do that
though.

J

On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Pablo Castro
<Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>wrote:

> Regular transactions take a timeout parameter when started, which ensures
> that we eventually make progress one way or the other if there's an
> un-cooperating script that won't let go of an object store or something like
> that.
>
> I'm not sure if we discussed this before, it seems that we need to add a
> similar thing for setVersion(), and it's basically a way of starting a
> transaction.
>
> I was thinking we could have an optional timeout argument in setVersion
> with a UA-specific default. In the async case we would fire the onerror
> event and in the sync case just throw, both with TIMEOUT_ERR.
>
> Thanks
> -pablo
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 16 December 2010 10:36:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:42 GMT