From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 5:03 AM
>> I noticed that QUOTA_ERR is commented out. I can't remember when or why and >> the blame history is a bit mangled. Does anyone else? In Chromium we >> currently use UNKNOWN_ERR for whenever we have issues writing stuff to disk. >> We could probably tease quota related issues out into their own error. >> And/or we should probably create or find a good existing error for such uses. It sounds like a good idea to keep QUOTA_ERR separated from other general errors that come up when writing stuff to disk. >> Speaking of which, we use UNKNOWN_ERR for a bunch of other >> internal consistency issues. Is this OK by everyone, should we use another, >> or should we create a new one? (Ideally these issues will be few and far >> between as we make things more robust.) That sounds reasonable to me. >> We also use UNKNOWN_ERR for when things are not yet implemented. Any >> concerns? I don't think it's a big deal, but are we going to have a bunch of unimplemented stuff across browsers? If this becomes common, I wonder if we should have a separate error so calling code can choose to compensate or something. >> What error code should we use for IDBCursor.update/delete when the cursor is >> not currently on an item (or that item has been deleted)? NOT_ALLOWED_ERR? >> TRANSIENT_ERR doesn't seem to be used anywhere in the spec. Should it be >> removed? Sure. >> As for the numbering: does anyone object to me just starting from 1 and >> going sequentially? I.e. does anyone have a problem with them all getting >> new numbers, or should I keep the numbers the same when possible. (i.e. >> only UNKNOWN_ERR, RECOVERABLE_ERR, TRANSIENT_ERR, TIMEOUT_ERR, DEADLOCK_ERR >> would change number, but the ordering of those on the page would change.) I'm fine with that. -pc
