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

Re: [IndexedDB] Passing an empty array to IDBDatabase.transaction

From: Hans Wennborg <hwennborg@google.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 08:59:52 +0100
Message-ID: <CAB8jPhf6CPwcesk8k+fN3or1LSHuS0nBKVVQ3PkQyOjqNJhn4w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 1:43 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> In both the Firefox and the Chrome implementation you can pass an
> empty array to IDBDatabase.transaction in order to create a
> transaction which has a scope that covers all objectStores in the
> database.;
>
> This, however, is not specified behavior. According to the spec as it
> is now the transaction should be created with an empty scope.
>
> I'm personally not a big fan of this syntax. My concern is that it
> makes it easier to create a widely scoped transaction which has less
> ability to run in parallel with other transactions, than to create a
> transaction with as narrow scope as possible. And passing
> db.objectStoreNames is always possible.
>
> What do people think we should do? Should we add this behavior to the
> spec? Or are implementations willing to remove it?

We agree it's a bad behavior, and are willing to remove that behavior
from our implementation.

Since it's never been in the spec, there shouldn't be too many
dependencies on it. It was mentioned in a tutorial that Jeremy wrote
though, so some might have picked it up from there.

Thanks,
Hans
Received on Monday, 10 October 2011 08:00:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:48 GMT