- From: Timothy Hatcher <timothy@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:40:00 -0700
I have finally looked over the new syntax and I'm starting to like how transactions are handled now. However, I feel the current spec has taken a turn towards a more complex model even for simple queries that don't require transactions. Compare: db.executeSql("CREATE TABLE WebKitStickyNotes (id REAL UNIQUE, note TEXT, timestamp REAL, left TEXT, top TEXT, zindex REAL)", []); and db.transaction(function(transacion) { transacion.executeSql("CREATE TABLE WebKitStickyNotes (id REAL UNIQUE, note TEXT, timestamp REAL, left TEXT, top TEXT, zindex REAL)", []) }); I think there needs to be an executeSql on the Database object still. Using executeSql on the Database will just queue up statements interleaved with the transactions. The other problem I see that makes the current spec more complex is the transaction callback. I think a better API would be: SQLTransaction transaction(); SQLTransaction transaction(in SQLTransactionErrorCallback errorCallback); Then you can call executeSql on the transaction object without having to wait for the callback. Sure, closures in JavaScript make this somewhat less painful, but closures are usually expensive and add additional complexity. Not to mention JavaScript is not the only language that the DOM can be accessed from, for example in WebKit using Objective-C where doing callbacks is a greater hassle. ? Timothy Hatcher -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20071031/483b7d74/attachment.htm>
Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2007 11:40:00 UTC