[indexeddb] Using IDBDatabaseSync.close or IDBFactorySync.deleteDatabase inside transaction's callback method
What do you think about NOT allowing IDBFactorySync.deleteDatabase and IDBDatabaseSync.close to be called from within the transaction callback method of IDBDatabaseSync.transaction or IDBDatabaseSync.setVersion? This will reduce the number of possible deadlocks inside the transaction callback. We can throw an IDBDatabaseException with NOT_ALLOWED_ERR if a developer tries to do this. Israel
Re: [indexeddb] Using IDBDatabaseSync.close or IDBFactorySync.deleteDatabase inside transaction's callback method
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com wrote: What do you think about NOT allowing IDBFactorySync.deleteDatabase and IDBDatabaseSync.close to be called from within the transaction callback method of IDBDatabaseSync.transaction or IDBDatabaseSync.setVersion? This will reduce the number of possible deadlocks inside the transaction callback. We can throw an IDBDatabaseException with NOT_ALLOWED_ERR if a developer tries to do this. Yes, this sounds like a good idea. Obviously this doesn't affect the async API, right? / Jonas
RE: [indexeddb] Using IDBDatabaseSync.close or IDBFactorySync.deleteDatabase inside transaction's callback method
On Tuesday, July 05, 2011 5:46 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com wrote: What do you think about NOT allowing IDBFactorySync.deleteDatabase and IDBDatabaseSync.close to be called from within the transaction callback method of IDBDatabaseSync.transaction or IDBDatabaseSync.setVersion? This will reduce the number of possible deadlocks inside the transaction callback. We can throw an IDBDatabaseException with NOT_ALLOWED_ERR if a developer tries to do this. Yes, this sounds like a good idea. Obviously this doesn't affect the async API, right? / Jonas Correct! This will only impact the sync APIs, not the async APIs. Israel
