Re: [w3c/IndexedDB] Allow more explicit control over transaction lifetimes (#34)

The [web locks API](https://wicg.github.io/web-locks/) shares a lot in common with this, I wonder if the concepts actually map one-to-one, for example we have `"read"` vs `"readwrite"` transactions, which map nicely to `"shared"` vs `"exclusive"` locks.

Then there's also requests for timeouts on indexxedDB transactions, this could naturally be built on top [stealing locks](https://wicg.github.io/web-locks/#dom-lockoptions-steal). In a lot of ways this would actually be safer for indexxeddb as the whole transaction can be rolled back instead of committed.

I wonder if would actually be possible to simply share the architecture such that in [request a lock](https://wicg.github.io/web-locks/#algorithm-request-lock), instead of simply taking a name, it could take an indexxeddb transaction record instead. This way indexeddb wouldn't need to build it's own concept of locking.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/IndexedDB/issues/34#issuecomment-768770699