W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: [indexeddb] Exception type for NON_TRANSIENT_ERR code

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 17:56:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei-mC_d_ZO5SSXSStArDkA99_ODhXrZVQNAL=kHJx98qeA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joshua Bell <jsbell@chromium.org>
Cc: Israel Hilerio <israelh@microsoft.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Joshua Bell <jsbell@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Israel Hilerio <israelh@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 29, 2011 12:04 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> > I think in many cases we should simply throw a TypeError here. That
>> > seems
>> > to match closely to how TypeError is used by WebIDL now.
>> As I'm mapping the Exception codes to the new Exception type model, I
>> thought we should mint a new type for NON_TRANSIENT_ERR, NonTransientError.
>>  The reason is that TypeError seems to be designed to cover all intrinsic
>> conversion cases and NON_TRANSIENT_ERR seems to be dealing with additional
>> validation beyond what TypeError normally checks for.
> As an aside, the current draft has IDBFactory.cmp() raise a
> NON_TRANSIENT_ERR when an invalid key is used, but most of the other
> functions that take keys  (IDBObjectStore.add/put/get/delete(), etc) raise a
> DATA_ERR on invalid keys. It would be nice to be consistent in the case
> where the explicitly specified key is invalid (vs. when it is a calculated
> key).

Agreed. DataError seems like a better exception here.

/ Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 4 October 2011 00:56:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:36 UTC