- From: Israel Hilerio <israelh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 15:51:15 +0000
- To: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Resending, any comments on this? Israel On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Israel Hilerio <israelh@microsoft.com> wrote: > We expect async operations to be queue up and executed in the order in > which they were created. Thus, the request to create a second transaction > inside the onsuccess handler of a setVersion request using a .transaction() > method would fail as long as we were inside a VERSION_CHANGE transaction. > The reason being that the VERSION_CHANGE transaction locks the complete > db. > > It seems we wouldn't want to allow this type of scenario. Do we expect this > to be a realistic scenario? Is there a reason why we wouldn't just throw a > NOT_ALLOWED_ERR. Could we modify the transaction method information > to say something like: > > -->Throws an IDBDatabaseException of NOT_ALLOWED_ERR when the > transaction() method is called within the onsuccess handler of a setVersion > request. > > This would simply the Async model and keep it consistent with the Sync > model. > > Israel > > [1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11401 >
Received on Thursday, 5 May 2011 15:51:56 UTC