It sounds like we're all in sync with this new behavior.
These are the various ways in which I see a developer getting a handle to the
database object in order to call transaction():
1. Keeping a global reference around after one of the open method handlers is
executed (i.e. onupgradeneeded or
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Israel Hilerio
> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2012 4:26 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Israel Hilerio
> >> wrote:
> >> > Should we allow the creation of READ_ONLY or
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 25, 2012 4:26 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Israel Hilerio
>> wrote:
>> > Should we allow the creation of READ_ONLY or READ_WRITE transactions
>> inside the oncomplete event handler of a
On Wednesday, January 25, 2012 4:26 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Israel Hilerio
> wrote:
> > Should we allow the creation of READ_ONLY or READ_WRITE transactions
> inside the oncomplete event handler of a VERSION_CHANGE transaction?
> > IE allows this behavior today.
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> Should we allow the creation of READ_ONLY or READ_WRITE transactions inside
> the oncomplete event handler of a VERSION_CHANGE transaction?
> IE allows this behavior today. However, we noticed that FF's nightly doesn't.
Yeah, it'd make se
Should we allow the creation of READ_ONLY or READ_WRITE transactions inside the
oncomplete event handler of a VERSION_CHANGE transaction?
IE allows this behavior today. However, we noticed that FF's nightly doesn't.
In either case, we should define this behavior in the spec.
Israel
