- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:30:07 -0800
- To: Israel Hilerio <israelh@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Joshua Bell <jsbell@chromium.org>, Adam Herchenroether <aherchen@microsoft.com>, Victor Ngo <vicngo@microsoft.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Israel Hilerio <israelh@microsoft.com> wrote: > On December 15, 2011 10:20 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Joshua Bell <jsbell@chromium.org> >> wrote: >> > Is there any particular reason why IDBTransaction.objectStore() and >> > IDBObjectStore.index() should be usable (i.e. return values vs. raise >> > exceptions) after the containing transaction has finished? >> > >> > Changing the spec so that calling these methods after the containing >> > transaction has finished raises InvalidStateError (or >> > TransactionInactiveError) could simplify implementations. >> >> That would be ok with me. >> >> Please file a bug though. >> >> / Jonas >> > Do we want to throw two Exceptions or one? > We currently throw a NOT_ALLOWED_ERR for IDBTransaction.objectStore() and a TRANSACTION_INACTIVE_ERR for IDBObjectStore.index(). > > It seems that we could throw a TRANSACTION_INACTIVE_ERR for both. > What do you think? I think InvalidStateError is slightly more correct (for both IDBTransaction.objectStore() and IDBObjectStore.index) since we're not planning on throwing if those functions are called in between transaction-request callbacks, right? I.e. TransactionInactiveError is more appropriate if it's always thrown whenever a transaction is inactive, which isn't the case here. / Jonas
Received on Friday, 16 December 2011 23:31:13 UTC