- From: Max Ogden <max@maxogden.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 20:12:38 -0700
- To: public-webapps@w3.org
> A big question here is "do you need transactional integrity/atomic > mutations?" These things will always make the API more complex and so > it gets in the way if you don't need it. But not having them means > exposing yourself to race conditions, especially as your application > grows more complex or simply if the user has your application open in > two separate tabs. > > My experience is that people need transactional integrity more often > than they think they do. > > The API at [1] punts on transactional integrity entirely. It does not > allow you to perform complex operations like "increase the value at > 'unreadEmailCount' by one" in a race-free manner. > > / Jonas Jonas, Totally agree here. However I'd rather have the flexibility to choose between a low level transactionless API and a higher level transaction based API, as each is a valid use case that each comes with tradeoffs. Brendan Eich commented here (https://gist.github.com/maxogden/11031041#comment-1213935) saying "We need atomic transaction building blocks", which I also fully agree with, but to me that means the base layer of functionality should not impose transactions on you, but rather let you opt in to them. Max
Received on Saturday, 19 April 2014 08:41:59 UTC