W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

[IndexedDB] Transaction Auto-Commit

From: Joran Greef <joran@ronomon.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:28:34 +0200
Message-Id: <4900D7B9-4FAC-44FD-890F-0D0FC36C84CE@ronomon.com>
To: public-webapps@w3.org
Regarding transactions in the IndexedDB specification (3.1.7 Transaction):

>> "Once a transaction no longer can become active, and if the transaction hasn't been aborted, the implementation must automatically attempt to commit it. This usually happens after all requests placed against the transaction has been executed and their returned results handled, but no new requests has been placed against the transaction."

What does "no longer can become active" mean?

>> "Authors can still cause transactions to run for a long time, however this is generally not a usage pattern which is recommended and can lead to bad user experience in some implementations."

How exactly can an author still cause a transaction to span several asynchronous events? For example, start a transaction, read a value, use that value to do something asynchronous outside of IDB (perhaps for a millisecond or two or up to a second), and then write the result of that back to the transaction?

If it is indeed possible for an author to prolong a transaction, does that mean the UA is implementing a delay to give transactions with asynchronous dependencies the chance to add requests?

Surely an explicit commit in this case would be preferable for performance reasons (with a UA timeout protecting against developer forgetfulness)? Then again, if a developer forgot an explicit commit, it would only block writes for his particular application.
Received on Monday, 25 July 2011 13:29:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:46 GMT