[whatwg] Comments on updated SQL API
beidson at apple.com
Wed Oct 17 14:09:00 PDT 2007
On Oct 17, 2007, at 2:04 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Oct 17, 2007, at 1:14 PM, Scott Hess wrote:
>> On 10/17/07, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs at apple.com> wrote:
>>> I'm not sure what other reasons Scott sees for (2). I do think it
>>> would aid authoring clarity to have the word "transaction" in the
>>> even if the model of how they are managed is much the same as
>>> currently (so you can't forget to close it) and even if a
>>> transactionless API is not added.
>> I think my concern is in two related bits:
>> A) As things currently stand, the developer simply can't roll their
>> own transaction structure. Passing BEGIN, COMMIT, or ROLLBACK to
>> executeSql() doesn't do anything sensible. It's possible you could
>> somehow do something using temporary tables, but that's going to be
>> really dependent on your underlying SQL implementation's
> Would replacing closeTransaction() with commitTransaction() and
> rollbackTransaction() address this?
Additionally, if we replaced closeTransaction() with
commitTransaction() and rollbackTransaction(), that would fit in with
my idea of disallowing BEGIN/COMMIT/ROLLBACK in executeSql() as the
developer would still have manual control over the implicit transaction.
I'm very interested to hear everyone's thoughts on this.
More information about the whatwg