- From: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
- Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 14:10:32 -0800
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
- Message-ID: <AANLkTimu_6jwpkWmBM2mLHMCcoTEhcv8yVqB7TVLU6rD@mail.gmail.com>
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