- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 09:56:32 -0800
- To: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
- Cc: Pablo Castro <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Pablo Castro <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com> > wrote: >> >> From: jorlow@google.com [mailto:jorlow@google.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy >> Orlow >> Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 2:35 AM >> >> >>In another thread (in the last couple days) we actually decided to >> >> remove timeouts from normal transactions since they can be implemented as a >> >> setTimeout+abort. >> >> >> >>But I agree that we need a way to abort setVersion transactions before >> >> getting the callback (so that we implement timeouts for them as well). >> >> Unfortunately, I don't immediately have any good ideas on how to do that >> >> though. >> >> Sorry, forgot to qualify it, context == sync api. I assume that the sync >> versions of the API will truly block, so setTimeout won't do as code won't >> just reenter into the timeout callback while blocked on a sync IndexedDB >> call, are we all on the same page on that? If that's the case, then I don't >> think we can remove the timeout parameter from the sync versions of >> transaction() and setVersion(). Does that sound reasonable? I'll add them >> for now, we can adjust if somebody come up with a better approach. >> >> As for setVersion in async...that's actually a problem as well now that I >> think about it because you don't have access to the (version) transaction >> object until it actually was able to start. One option besides having a >> timeout parameter in the method would be to have an abort() method in >> IDBVersionChangeRequest. > > Very good points.... > Given the fact that we will need timeouts for the sync version, I'm starting > to wonder if it makes sense to just leave in for the async version. Hm... > Jonas, what do you think? I'm fine with that, but I still don't think we should introduce the options object, given how rarely the timeout parameter is likely to be used. / Jonas
Received on Friday, 17 December 2010 17:57:30 UTC