- From: Brady Eidson <beidson@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:37:58 -0700
On Oct 29, 2007, at 6:25 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > 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. I agree that other than *being* the context information, the SQLTransaction object itself won't help them. Since currying is a functional - if not annoying - solution, I'll let this one go :) Thanks, ~Brady
Received on Monday, 29 October 2007 18:37:58 UTC