Re: [Bug 11348] New: [IndexedDB] Overhaul of the event model

Just to confirm, we don't want the events to propagate to the window itself,
right?

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 3:44 AM, <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org> wrote:

> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11348
>
>           Summary: [IndexedDB] Overhaul of the event model
>           Product: WebAppsWG
>           Version: unspecified
>          Platform: PC
>        OS/Version: All
>            Status: NEW
>          Severity: normal
>          Priority: P2
>         Component: Indexed Database API
>        AssignedTo: dave.null@w3.org
>        ReportedBy: jorlow@chromium.org
>         QAContact: member-webapi-cvs@w3.org
>                CC: mike@w3.org, public-webapps@w3.org
>
>
> We talked about this for a while at TPAC.  Here's what I think we agreed
> upon
> at the time:
>
> * All events should propagate from the IDBRequest to the IDBTransaction to
> the
> IDBDatabase.
>
> * For error events, preventDefault must be called in order to avoid a
> transaction aborting.  (When you use onerror, you'd of course use false to
> do
> so.)
>
> * If you throw within an event handler, the transaction will abort.  (Catch
> errors that you don't want to implicitly abort the transaction.)
>
> * The success event will be non-bubbling (because having onsuccess on
> IDBTransaction and IDBDatabase would be confusing).
>
> * The error event should be added to IDBTransaction and IDBDatabase and
> should
> bubble.
>
> * createObjectStore should remain sync and simply abort the transaction on
> errors (which are pretty much constrained to quota and internal errors).
>
> * createIndex is the same, except that indexes with a uniqueness constraint
> and
> existing data that doesn't satisfy it will present another (and more
> common)
> case that'll cause the transaction to abort.  The spec should have a red
> note
> that reminds people of this.
>
> --
> Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You are on the CC list for the bug.
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 2 February 2011 22:11:34 UTC