W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: [IndexedDB] Reason for aborting transactions

From: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 10:48:37 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTimHeo=kcqxUpVoJjOSNreuR-XLo6Q7qtg466kb4@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Ben Turner <bent@mozilla.com>
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 2:21 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > We do that as well.
> >> >> > What's the best way to do it API wise?  Do we need to add an
> >> >> > IDBTransactionError object with error codes and such?
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't actually know. I can't think of a precedence. Usually you use
> >> >> different error codes for different errors, but here we want to
> >> >> distinguish a particular type of error (aborts) into several sub
> >> >> categories.
> >> >
> >> > I don't see how that's any different than what we're doing with the
> >> > onerror
> >> > error codes though?
> >>
> >> Hmm.. true.
> >>
> >> >> To make this more complicated, I actually think we're going to end up
> >> >> having to change a lot of error handling when things are all said and
> >> >> done. Error handling right now is sort of a mess since DOM exceptions
> >> >> are vastly different from JavaScript exceptions. Also DOM exceptions
> >> >> have a messy situation of error codes overlapping making it very easy
> >> >> to confuse a IDBDatabaseException with a DOMException with an
> >> >> overlapping error code.
> >> >>
> >> >> For details, see
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-script-coord/2010OctDec/0112.html
> >> >>
> >> >> So my gut feeling is that we'll have to revamp exceptions quite a bit
> >> >> before we unprefix our implementation. This is very unfortunate, but
> >> >> shouldn't be as big deal of a deal as many other changes as most of
> >> >> the time people don't have error handling code. Or at least not error
> >> >> handling code that differentiates the various errors.
> >> >>
> >> >> Unfortunately we can't make any changes to the spec here until WebIDL
> >> >> prescribes what the new exceptions should look like :(
> >> >>
> >> >> So to loop back to your original question, I think that the best way
> >> >> to expose the different types of aborts is by adding a .reason (or
> >> >> better named) property which returns a string or enum which describes
> >> >> the reason for the abort.
> >> >
> >> > Could we just add .abortCode, .abortReason, and constants for each
> code
> >> > to
> >> > IDBTransaction?
> >>
> >> Why both? How are they different. I'd just go with the former to align
> >> with error codes.
> >
> > Sorry, I meant .abortMessage instead of .abortReason.  This would be much
> > like normal error messages where we have a code that's standardized and
> easy
> > for scripts to understand and then the message portion which is easy for
> > humans to understand but more ad-hoc.
> >
> >>
> >> > And maybe revisit in the future?
> >>
> >> Yes. I think we need to wait for webidl to solidify a bit here before
> >> we do anything.
> >
> > I think we should put something in our spec in the mean time, but once
> > WebIDL solidifies then we can revisit and try to match what's decided
> there.
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 8:07 AM, ben turner <bent.mozilla@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Why not just expand our list of error codes to have multiple ABORT_
> >> variants for each situation, and then always fire the "abort" event
> >> with a slightly different errorCode?
> >>
> >> That seems far simpler IMO.
> >
> > If that is OK spec wise, I'm fine with it.  To be honest, hanging
> > ABORT_BLAHs off IDBDatabaseException seems a bit odd though.
>
> I think at this point I've sort of lost track of what the proposal is.
> Is it simply making abort events look like error events, but obviously
> with .type set to "abort". And give them codes which live side-by-side
> with the error codes?
>
> If so, that would be ok with me.
>

I think that's what Ben was suggesting.  I was suggesting that it seemed
kind of odd though, and I'd prefer the following:

Add the following to IDBTransaction:
  readonly attribute EXPLICIT_ABORT = 1
  readonly attribute INTERNAL_ERROR_ABORT = 2
  readonly attribute QUOTA_ERROR_ABORT=3
  ... etc
  readonly attribute abortMessage;
  readonly attribute abortCode;

And just set the message/code right before firing an abort event.

J
Received on Tuesday, 8 February 2011 18:49:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:43 GMT