On Wednesday, June 15, 2011 3:27 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Israel Hilerio <[email protected]> > wrote: > > IDBFactory.deleteDatabase can be called without ever invoking the > > IDBDatabase.setVersion and requires a VERSION_CHANGE transaction for > > it to happen. Unfortunately, there is no way for the caller of > > deleteDatabase to receive a blocked event because IDBRequest doesn't > > define an onblocked event handler. Not having this functionality will > > prevent the deleteDatabase caller from understanding that someone has > > the DB locked and that the request cannot be honored. > > > > > > > > To support this scenario we would have to change the return value of > > IDBFactory.deleteDatabase to return an IDBVersionChangeRequest. This > > will allow the caller to register an onblocked event handler and > > receive an event when the DB is locked by someone else. > > Agreed! > > > In addition, we may want to update the text in "4.10 Database deletion > > steps" step #6 from "fire a blocked event at request" to "fire a block > > event at version change request". > > Hmm.. isn't "request" just defined to be the variable used throughout the > algorithm to fire events at? It's more like a name of a variable than a type. > If > you look at the VERSION_CHANGE transaction steps they also simply use > "request". > > / Jonas
Great! If everyone else is okay with it, I'll work with Eliot to change the signature of the method and we'll keep section 4.10 as is. Thanks, Israel
