Re: IndexedDB TPAC agenda

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 5:13 AM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
> wrote:
> >> > What items should we try to cover during the f2f?
> >> > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > P.S. I'm happy to discuss all of this f2f tomorrow rather than over
> >> >> > email
> >> >> > now.
> >> >>
> >> >> Speaking of which, would be great to have an agenda. Some of the
> >> >> bigger items are:
> >> >>
> >> >> * Dynamic transactions
> >> >> * Arrays-as-keys
> >> >> * Arrays and indexes (what to do if the keyPath for an index
> evaluates
> >> >> to an array)
> >> >> * Synchronous API
> >> >
> >> > * Compound keys.
> >> > * What should be allowed in a keyPath.
> >>
> >> Aren't "compound keys" same as "arrays-as-keys"?
> >
> > Sorry, I meant to say compound indexes.
> > We've talked about using indexes in many different ways--including
> compound
> > indexes and allowing keys to include indexes.  I assumed you meant the
> > latter....?
>
> I'm lost as to what you're saying here. Could you elaborate? Are you
> saying "index" when you mean "array" anywhere?
>

oops.  Yes, I meant to say: "We've talked about using arrays in many
different ways--including compound indexes and allowing keys to include
arrays.  I assumed you meant the latter....?"


> >> * What should happen if an index's keyPath points to a property which
> >> doesn't exist or which isn't a valid key-value? (same general topic as
> >> "arrays and indexes" above)
> >
> > We've talked about this several times.  It'd be great to settle on
> something
> > once and for all.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >> * What happens if the user leaves a page in the middle of a
> >> transaction? (this might be nice to tackle since there'll be lots of
> >> relevant people in the room)
> >
> > I'm pretty sure this is simple: if there's an onsuccess/onerror handler
> that
> > has not yet fired (or we're in the middle of firing), then you abort the
> > transaction.  If not, the behavior is undefined (because there's no way
> the
> > app could have observed the difference anyway).  The aborting behavior is
> > necessary since the user could have planned to execute additional
> commands
> > atomically in the handler.
>
> There is also the option to let the transaction finish. They should be
> short-lived so it shouldn't be too bad.
>

I.e. keep the page alive for a bit longer in the background or something
that blocks page unload?  Is there precedent for this elsewhere?  This
sounds pretty complicated to get right both in terms of implementation and
speccing.  Let's chat about it though.


> >> * Error handling
> >
> > What do you mean by this?
>
> How to handle exceptions in various places. Where (error) events
> propagate. How does it relate to window.onerror. What happens if you
> do/don't call preventDefault on the error event?
>


Sounds good.