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

RE: IndexedDB: calling IDBTransaction.objectStore() or IDBObjectStore.index() after transaction is finished?

From: Israel Hilerio <israelh@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 22:41:24 +0000
To: "Jonas Sicking (jonas@sicking.cc)" <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: Joshua Bell <jsbell@chromium.org>, Adam Herchenroether <aherchen@microsoft.com>, Victor Ngo <vicngo@microsoft.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F695AF7AA77CC745A271AD0F61BBC61E41E1BDA9@TK5EX14MBXC115.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
On December 15, 2011 10:20 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Joshua Bell <jsbell@chromium.org>
> wrote:
> > Is there any particular reason why IDBTransaction.objectStore() and
> > IDBObjectStore.index() should be usable (i.e. return values vs. raise
> > exceptions) after the containing transaction has finished?
> >
> > Changing the spec so that calling these methods after the containing
> > transaction has finished raises InvalidStateError (or
> > TransactionInactiveError) could simplify implementations.
> 
> That would be ok with me.
> 
> Please file a bug though.
> 
> / Jonas
> 
Do we want to throw two Exceptions or one? 
We currently throw a  NOT_ALLOWED_ERR for IDBTransaction.objectStore() and a TRANSACTION_INACTIVE_ERR for IDBObjectStore.index().

It seems that we could throw a TRANSACTION_INACTIVE_ERR for both.
What do you think?

Israel
Received on Friday, 16 December 2011 22:42:58 GMT

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