- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 10:28:20 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Aaron Boodman <aa@google.com>
- Cc: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Received on Sunday, 16 August 2009 10:29:00 UTC
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Aaron Boodman wrote: > >> > >> I also don't see what not having a callback buys. I'm not sure if you > >> noticed, but I was suggesting that the callback be reentrant. So if you > >> do this: > >> > >> var theResult = null; > >> database.syncTransaction(function(tx) { > >> theResult = tx.executeSQL("select * from ...").rows[0].val; > >> }); > >> alert(theResult); > >> > >> It will do the right thing. Are you concerned that developers won't > >> realize that the callback is reentrant and will invest more effort > >> writing their code in an asynchronous style? > > > > The only reason for not using callbacks in the sync API was that callbacks > > are harder to work with than the straight-forward imperative style. > > > > I can change the spec to a hybrid style with statements in the imperative > > form but the transactions themselves using closures. Would that be ok? > > Yes, that is what I was proposing. Done. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Sunday, 16 August 2009 10:29:00 UTC