[whatwg] Comments on updated SQL API

On Oct 17, 2007, at 1:14 PM, Scott Hess wrote:

> On 10/17/07, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs at apple.com> wrote:
>> I'm not sure what other reasons Scott sees for (2). I do think it
>> would aid authoring clarity to have the word "transaction" in the  
>> API,
>> even if the model of how they are managed is much the same as
>> currently (so you can't forget to close it) and even if a
>> transactionless API is not added.
>
> I think my concern is in two related bits:
>
> A) As things currently stand, the developer simply can't roll their
> own transaction structure.  Passing BEGIN, COMMIT, or ROLLBACK to
> executeSql() doesn't do anything sensible.  It's possible you could
> somehow do something using temporary tables, but that's going to be
> really dependent on your underlying SQL implementation's capabilities.

Would replacing closeTransaction() with commitTransaction() and  
rollbackTransaction() address this?

Regards,
Maciej

Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2007 14:04:28 UTC