RE: [indexeddb] Should deleteDatabase return IDBVersionChangeRequest?

On Wednesday, June 15, 2011 3:27 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Israel Hilerio <israelh@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
> > IDBFactory.deleteDatabase can be called without ever invoking the
> > IDBDatabase.setVersion and requires a VERSION_CHANGE transaction for
> > it to happen.  Unfortunately, there is no way for the caller of
> > deleteDatabase to receive a blocked event because IDBRequest doesn't
> > define an onblocked event handler.  Not having this functionality will
> > prevent the deleteDatabase caller from understanding that someone has
> > the DB locked and that the request cannot be honored.
> >
> >
> >
> > To support this scenario we would have to change the return value of
> > IDBFactory.deleteDatabase to return an IDBVersionChangeRequest.  This
> > will allow the caller to register an onblocked event handler and
> > receive an event when the DB is locked by someone else.
> 
> Agreed!
> 
> > In addition, we may want to update the text in "4.10 Database deletion
> > steps" step #6 from "fire a blocked event at request" to "fire a block
> > event at version change request".
> 
> Hmm.. isn't "request" just defined to be the variable used throughout the
> algorithm to fire events at? It's more like a name of a variable than a type. If
> you look at the VERSION_CHANGE transaction steps they also simply use
> "request".
> 
> / Jonas

Great!  
If everyone else is okay with it, I'll work with Eliot to change the signature of the method and we'll keep section 4.10 as is.
Thanks,

Israel

Received on Thursday, 16 June 2011 00:35:28 UTC