On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Israel Hilerio <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tuesday, August 16, 2011 8:08 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> On Monday, August 15, 2011, Shawn Wilsher <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On 8/15/2011 3:31 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote: >> >> >> >> When the db is doing a commit after processing all records on the >> >> transaction, if for some reason it fails, should we produce an error >> >> event first and let the bubbling produce a transaction abort event or >> >> should we only produce a transaction abort event. It seems that doing >> >> the first approach would be more complete. >> > >> > I agree; the first approach seems better and I can't think of any reason >> > why it would be difficult to implement. >> > >> > The catch is that calling `preventDefault` will not prevent the abort, >> > which is (I think) different from how we handle other errors, right? >> >> Yeah, I'm tempted to say that that is enough of a reason for simply firing >> abort directly, but I could be convinced otherwise. >> >> / Jonas > > We would like to follow the first approach because it allows us to notify the > developer that there was an error on the transaction and that is the reason > the transaction was aborted.
Ok, that works for me. / Jonas
