[whatwg] Comments on updated SQL API

On Oct 17, 2007, at 1:41 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> On Oct 17, 2007, at 12:33 AM, Brady Eidson wrote:
>> An admirable goal - one that I agree with.  Which is why I think  
>> the wisdom of the implicit transaction is dubious.  Developers that  
>> will be using SQL will know they can say "BEGIN TRANSACTION;" and  
>> "COMMIT;" or "ROLLBACK;" so the utility of having transactions will  
>> not be lost.  Ditching it would help thin the API further, clearing  
>> up this confusion and complexity.
> Downsides to this approach:
> - You could only have one transaction in flight at once, so you'd  
> have to do scheduling in the app code if a transaction-starting UI  
> operation happens while you already have a transaction in progress.  
> Otherwise multiple transactions would get scrambled. (Or else the  
> API layer could parse your statements and understand when you have  
> opened a transaction to still implicitly assign statements in your  
> callbacks to the transaction, but I am not sure this is a  
> simplification overall.)
> - An author mistake (like doing something that causes an exception  
> in the callback) means a stuck lock, quite possibly ruining the  
> whole session.

I agree these are potential downfalls, but ones that already exist  
with the current spec.  We have the implicit transaction already, so a  
performance-minded developer starting their own transaction might  
already trigger this scenario


Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2007 09:14:42 UTC