W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2011

RE: [indexeddb] Should deleteDatabase return IDBVersionChangeRequest?

From: Israel Hilerio <israelh@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 00:19:44 +0000
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F695AF7AA77CC745A271AD0F61BBC61E3D15073F@TK5EX14MBXC115.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
On Thursday, June 16, 2011 4:49 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Israel Hilerio <israelh@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 15, 2011 3:27 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Israel Hilerio
> >> <israelh@microsoft.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > IDBFactory.deleteDatabase can be called without ever invoking the
> >> > IDBDatabase.setVersion and requires a VERSION_CHANGE transaction
> >> > for it to happen.  Unfortunately, there is no way for the caller of
> >> > deleteDatabase to receive a blocked event because IDBRequest
> >> > doesn't define an onblocked event handler.  Not having this
> >> > functionality will prevent the deleteDatabase caller from
> >> > understanding that someone has the DB locked and that the request
> cannot be honored.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > To support this scenario we would have to change the return value
> >> > of IDBFactory.deleteDatabase to return an IDBVersionChangeRequest.
> >> > This will allow the caller to register an onblocked event handler
> >> > and receive an event when the DB is locked by someone else.
> >>
> >> Agreed!
> >>
> >> > In addition, we may want to update the text in "4.10 Database
> >> > deletion steps" step #6 from "fire a blocked event at request" to
> >> > "fire a block event at version change request".
> >>
> >> Hmm.. isn't "request" just defined to be the variable used throughout
> >> the algorithm to fire events at? It's more like a name of a variable
> >> than a type. If you look at the VERSION_CHANGE transaction steps they
> >> also simply use "request".
> >>
> >> / Jonas
> >
> > Great!
> > If everyone else is okay with it, I'll work with Eliot to change the signature of
> the method and we'll keep section 4.10 as is.
> > Thanks,
> 
> Sounds great! You probably need to mention in the text somewhere too that
> the created request should implement the IDBVersionChangeRequest
> interface. Look at how setVersion does it.
> 
> / Jonas

Sounds good, we'll do.

Israel
Received on Friday, 17 June 2011 00:20:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:45 GMT