On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.comwrote:
On Friday, October 14, 2011 2:33 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
On Monday, October 10, 2011 10:10 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu, Oct 6,
On Tuesday, November 08, 2011 2:09 PM, David Grogan wrote:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com wrote:
On Friday, October 14, 2011 2:33 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
The firing of error events on the transaction should only be of two types:
propagation error events
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.comwrote:
On Tuesday, November 08, 2011 2:09 PM, David Grogan wrote:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
On Friday, October 14, 2011 2:33 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
The firing of error
Yes! By surface I meant bubble, in other words the request errors will
continue to bubble up to the onerror handler of the transaction but the fatal
errors won't ever be accessible via the onerror handler of the transaction.
Israel
On Tuesday, November 08, 2011 5:35 PM, David Grogan wrote:
On
On Friday, October 14, 2011 2:33 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
On Monday, October 10, 2011 10:10 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
On Tuesday,
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com wrote:
On Monday, October 10, 2011 10:10 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com wrote:
On Tuesday, October 04, 2011 3:01 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011
On Monday, October 10, 2011 10:10 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com wrote:
On Tuesday, October 04, 2011 3:01 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com wrote:
On Tuesday, October 04, 2011 3:01 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Israel Hilerio
isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
Based
On Tuesday, October 04, 2011 3:01 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Israel Hilerio
isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
Based on previous conversations, it seems we've agreed that there
are
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:01 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
Based on previous conversations, it seems we've agreed that there are
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com wrote:
Based on previous conversations, it seems we've agreed that there are
situations in which a transaction could failed independent of explicit
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com wrote:
Based on previous conversations, it seems we've agreed that there are
situations in which a transaction could failed independent of explicit
requests (i.e. QUOTA_ERR, TIMEOUT_ERR). We believe that this can be
Based on previous conversations, it seems we've agreed that there are
situations in which a transaction could failed independent of explicit requests
(i.e. QUOTA_ERR, TIMEOUT_ERR). We believe that this can be represented as an
implicit request that is being triggered by a transaction. We
13 matches
Mail list logo
