Re: [IndexedDB] Do we need a timeout for VERSION_CHANGE?

2010-12-16 Thread Jeremy Orlow
In another thread (in the last couple days) we actually decided to remove timeouts from normal transactions since they can be implemented as a setTimeout+abort. But I agree that we need a way to abort setVersion transactions before getting the callback (so that we implement timeouts for them as

RE: [IndexedDB] Do we need a timeout for VERSION_CHANGE?

2010-12-16 Thread Pablo Castro
From: jor...@google.com [mailto:jor...@google.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 2:35 AM In another thread (in the last couple days) we actually decided to remove timeouts from normal transactions since they can be implemented as a setTimeout+abort. But I agree

[IndexedDB] Do we need a timeout for VERSION_CHANGE?

2010-12-15 Thread Pablo Castro
Regular transactions take a timeout parameter when started, which ensures that we eventually make progress one way or the other if there's an un-cooperating script that won't let go of an object store or something like that. I'm not sure if we discussed this before, it seems that we need to add