[whatwg] Comments on updated SQL API

On Oct 17, 2007, at 2:04 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> 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?

Additionally, if we replaced closeTransaction() with  
commitTransaction() and rollbackTransaction(), that would fit in with  
my idea of disallowing BEGIN/COMMIT/ROLLBACK in executeSql() as the  
developer would still have manual control over the implicit transaction.

I'm very interested to hear everyone's thoughts on this.


Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2007 14:09:00 UTC