[whatwg] Comments on updated SQL API
Brady Eidson
beidson at apple.com
Wed Oct 17 09:14:42 PDT 2007
On Oct 17, 2007, at 1:41 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Oct 17, 2007, at 12:33 AM, Brady Eidson wrote:
>
>> An admirable goal - one that I agree with. Which is why I think
>> the wisdom of the implicit transaction is dubious. Developers that
>> will be using SQL will know they can say "BEGIN TRANSACTION;" and
>> "COMMIT;" or "ROLLBACK;" so the utility of having transactions will
>> not be lost. Ditching it would help thin the API further, clearing
>> up this confusion and complexity.
>
>
> Downsides to this approach:
>
> - You could only have one transaction in flight at once, so you'd
> have to do scheduling in the app code if a transaction-starting UI
> operation happens while you already have a transaction in progress.
> Otherwise multiple transactions would get scrambled. (Or else the
> API layer could parse your statements and understand when you have
> opened a transaction to still implicitly assign statements in your
> callbacks to the transaction, but I am not sure this is a
> simplification overall.)
>
> - An author mistake (like doing something that causes an exception
> in the callback) means a stuck lock, quite possibly ruining the
> whole session.
I agree these are potential downfalls, but ones that already exist
with the current spec. We have the implicit transaction already, so a
performance-minded developer starting their own transaction might
already trigger this scenario
~Brady
More information about the whatwg
mailing list