- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 02:03:21 -0800
- To: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
- Cc: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> wrote: > We're currently implementing the onblocked/setVersion semantics and ran into > an interesting problem: if you don't call .close() on a database and simply > expect it to be collected, then you ever being able to run a setVersion > transaction is at the mercy of the garbage collecter doing a collection. > Otherwise implementations will assume the database is still open...right? > If so, this seems bad. But I can't think of any way to get around it. > Thoughts? Hmm.. never thought about this problem. But yes, I suspect this issue comes up in our implementation. The only solution I can think of is to require (or recommend) that implementations run the garbage collector in a context after firing the "versionchange" event if the database still isn't closed. This should be a rare occurrence simply because setVersion should be rare. / Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 8 February 2011 10:04:16 UTC