- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 01:25:03 +0000 (UTC)
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Brady Eidson wrote: > > > > > > I propose we change SQLTransactionErrorCallback.handleEvent() to > > > have the same signature as the SQLStatementErrorCallback, which is: > > > boolean handleEvent(in SQLTransaction transaction, in SQLError > > > error); > > > > Actually I specifically didn't include the transaction because I can't > > see what you could do with it. You know which transaction it is, it's > > the one to which you are passing the method. > > Why can't a developer have a global transaction error callback they use > for multiple transactions, including the possibility of transactions > from more than one database at a time? No rule prevents this. They can, but so what? What are they going to do with the transaction object? It doesn't have any information they can use, and the only method on there is one that would raise an exception if they called it. If the author wants to pass context information to their error handler they can (only) do so using currying, I don't see how the SQLTransaction object is going to help them. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 29 October 2007 18:25:03 UTC