On 10/25/07, Brady Eidson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > changeVersion() takes SQLVersionChangeCallback and > SQLTransactionErrorCallback arguments. > transaction() takes SQLTransactionCallback and > SQLTransactionErrorCallback arguments. > > SQLVersionChangeCallback and SQLTransactionCallback have identical > properties. > > It is understood that a changeVersion() chain opens a transaction to > perform your version change with, and besides the additional pre/post > flight steps regarding the version change it operates the same as a > transaction() chain. > > I don't see the point of having a differentiated > SQLVersionChangeCallback when SQLTransactionErrorCallback is good > enough for the error case of changeVersion(). I propose we drop > SQLVersionChangeCallback and modify the full signiture of > changeVersion from: > void changeVersion(in DOMString oldVersion, in DOMString newVersion, > in SQLVersionChangeCallback callback, in SQLTransactionErrorCallback > errorCallback); > to: > void changeVersion(in DOMString oldVersion, in DOMString newVersion, > in SQLTransactionCallback callback, in SQLTransactionErrorCallback > errorCallback);
I may be completely alone in this one, but is schema versioning as part of the API really a necessary thing? I mean, it's convenient, but is it necessary? Just trying to keep it simple. :DG<
