Re: [IndexedDB] Passing an empty array to IDBDatabase.transaction

On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Joshua Bell <jsbell@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Israel Hilerio <israelh@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Friday, October 14, 2011 3:57 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Israel Hilerio <israelh@microsoft.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > On Friday, October 14, 2011 2:43 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> > >> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Israel Hilerio
>> > >> <israelh@microsoft.com>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >> > On Monday, October 10, 2011 10:15 AM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
>> > >> >> On Monday, October 10, 2011 9:46 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> > >> >> > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Israel Hilerio
>> > >> >> > <israelh@microsoft.com>
>> > >> >> > wrote:
>> > >> >> > > On Thursday, October 06, 2011 5:44 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> > >> >> > >> Hi All,
>> > >> >> > >>
>> > >> >> > >> In both the Firefox and the Chrome implementation you can
>> > >> >> > >> pass an empty array to IDBDatabase.transaction in order to
>> > >> >> > >> create a transaction which has a scope that covers all
>> > >> >> > >> objectStores in the database. I.e. you can do something like:
>> > >> >> > >>
>> > >> >> > >> trans = db.transaction([]);
>> > >> >> > >> trans.objectStore(<any objectstore here>);
>> > >> >> > >>
>> > >> >> > >> (Note that this is *not* a dynamic scoped transaction, it's
>> > >> >> > >> still a static scope that covers the whole database).
>> > >> >> > >>
>> > >> >> > >> In other words, these implementations treat the following two
>> > >> >> > >> lines as
>> > >> >> > >> equivalent:
>> > >> >> > >>
>> > >> >> > >> trans = db.transaction([]);
>> > >> >> > >> trans = db.transaction(db.objectStoreNames);
>> > >> >> > >>
>> > >> >> > >> This, however, is not specified behavior. According to the
>> > >> >> > >> spec as it is now the transaction should be created with an
>> > >> >> > >> empty
>> > scope.
>> > >> >> > >>
>> > >> >> > >> I suspect both Mozilla and Google implemented it this way
>> > >> >> > >> because we had discussions about this syntax on the list.
>> > >> >> > >> However apparently this syntax never made it into the spec. I
>> > >> >> > >> don't
>> > >> recall why.
>> > >> >> > >>
>> > >> >> > >> I'm personally not a big fan of this syntax. My concern is
>> > >> >> > >> that it makes it easier to create a widely scoped transaction
>> > >> >> > >> which has less ability to run in parallel with other
>> > >> >> > >> transactions, than to create a transaction with as narrow
>> > >> >> > >> scope as
>> > possible.
>> > >> >> > >> And passing
>> > >> >> > db.objectStoreNames is always possible.
>> > >> >> > >>
>> > >> >> > >> What do people think we should do? Should we add this
>> > >> >> > >> behavior to the spec? Or are implementations willing to
>> > >> >> > >> remove it?
>> > >> >> > >>
>> > >> >> > >> / Jonas
>> > >> >> > >>
>> > >> >> > >
>> > >> >> > > Our implementation interprets the empty array as an empty
>> > >> >> > > scope.
>> > >> >> > > We
>> > >> >> > allow the transaction to be created but we throw a NOT_FOUND_ERR
>> > >> >> > when trying to access any object stores.
>> > >> >> > > I vote for not having this behavior :-).
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > Hi Israel,
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > I just realized that I might have misinterpreted your response.
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > Are you saying that you think that passing an empty-array should
>> > >> >> > produce a transaction with an empty scope (like in IEs
>> > >> >> > implementation and as described by the spec currently), or a
>> > >> >> > transaction with every objectStore in scope (like in Firefox and
>> > chrome)?
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > / Jonas
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> We don't do it like FF or chrome.  We create the transaction but
>> > >> >> it has an empty scope transaction.  Therefore, whenever you try to
>> > >> >> access an object store we throw an exception.  Based on what Hans
>> > >> >> said, it seems we're all in agreement.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Also, I like Ben's suggestion of not allowing these transactions
>> > >> >> to be created in the first place and throwing an exception during
>> > >> >> their
>> > >> creation.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Israel
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >
>> > >> > What type of exception should we throw when trying to create a
>> > >> > transaction
>> > >> with an empty scope (NotFoundError, TypeError, or other)?
>> > >>
>> > >> Either of those would work for me.
>> > >>
>> > >> / Jonas
>> > >
>> > > We would like to go with NotFoundError.  The reason is that an empty
>> > > array
>> > is still the correct type and therefore a TypeError would seem strange.
>> >
>> > Just noticed "InvalidAccessError" which seems like it could be a good
>> > fit too.
>> >
>> > / Jonas
>> >
>>
>> I like that better!  Seems to match closer the reason for the failure.
>>
>> Israel
>>
>
> While this is top-of-mind, is there any desire to eliminate the case of
> special passing a string into IDBDatabase.transaction() for the storeNames
> parameter, versus a DOMStringList/Array? That case is documented in the
> spec, is currently functional in Chrome and has partial test coverage. It
> doesn't have the same potentially hidden performance concerns that the []
> shortcut does, but it is a special case and requires pushing interpretation
> and validation of the parameter's type from IDL binding into IDB-specific
> code.

I sort of like the short-cut since it seems like a very common case
for web developers to want to create a transaction which only uses a
single objectStore.

But I agree it's not a huge win for developers as far as typing goes
(two characters).

I *think* we can move the validation into the IDL binding these days.
Something like:

interface IDBDatabase {
  ...
  transaction(DOMStringList storeNames, optional unsigned short mode);
  transaction(DOMString[] storeNames, optional unsigned short mode);
  transaction(DOMString storeNames, optional unsigned short mode);
  ...
}

The WebSocket constructor does something similar.

cc'ing Cameron to confirm that this is valid. It *might* even be the
case that DOMStringList passes as a DOMString[]?

But if people really want to get rid of the shortcut I'm not married
to it. But it does seem nice :)

/ Jonas

Received on Monday, 17 October 2011 23:20:40 UTC