W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > October 2007

[whatwg] Comments on updated SQL API

From: Brady Eidson <beidson@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:09:00 -0700
Message-ID: <7F24276B-C3D6-4419-A81D-D4BED3E62074@apple.com>

On Oct 17, 2007, at 2:04 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

>
> On Oct 17, 2007, at 1:14 PM, Scott Hess wrote:
>
>> On 10/17/07, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs at apple.com> wrote:
>>> I'm not sure what other reasons Scott sees for (2). I do think it
>>> would aid authoring clarity to have the word "transaction" in the  
>>> API,
>>> even if the model of how they are managed is much the same as
>>> currently (so you can't forget to close it) and even if a
>>> transactionless API is not added.
>>
>> I think my concern is in two related bits:
>>
>> A) As things currently stand, the developer simply can't roll their
>> own transaction structure.  Passing BEGIN, COMMIT, or ROLLBACK to
>> executeSql() doesn't do anything sensible.  It's possible you could
>> somehow do something using temporary tables, but that's going to be
>> really dependent on your underlying SQL implementation's  
>> capabilities.
>
> Would replacing closeTransaction() with commitTransaction() and  
> rollbackTransaction() address this?

Additionally, if we replaced closeTransaction() with  
commitTransaction() and rollbackTransaction(), that would fit in with  
my idea of disallowing BEGIN/COMMIT/ROLLBACK in executeSql() as the  
developer would still have manual control over the implicit transaction.

I'm very interested to hear everyone's thoughts on this.

~Brady
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2007 14:09:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:37 UTC