[whatwg] SQL API complex for simple cases
Timothy Hatcher
timothy at apple.com
Wed Oct 31 11:40:00 PDT 2007
I have finally looked over the new syntax and I'm starting to like how
transactions are handled now. However, I feel the current spec has
taken a turn towards a more complex model even for simple queries that
don't require transactions.
Compare:
db.executeSql("CREATE TABLE WebKitStickyNotes (id REAL UNIQUE, note
TEXT, timestamp REAL, left TEXT, top TEXT, zindex REAL)", []);
and
db.transaction(function(transacion) { transacion.executeSql("CREATE
TABLE WebKitStickyNotes (id REAL UNIQUE, note TEXT, timestamp REAL,
left TEXT, top TEXT, zindex REAL)", []) });
I think there needs to be an executeSql on the Database object still.
Using executeSql on the Database will just queue up statements
interleaved with the transactions.
The other problem I see that makes the current spec more complex is
the transaction callback. I think a better API would be:
SQLTransaction transaction();
SQLTransaction transaction(in SQLTransactionErrorCallback
errorCallback);
Then you can call executeSql on the transaction object without having
to wait for the callback. Sure, closures in JavaScript make this
somewhat less painful, but closures are usually expensive and add
additional complexity. Not to mention JavaScript is not the only
language that the DOM can be accessed from, for example in WebKit
using Objective-C where doing callbacks is a greater hassle.
— Timothy Hatcher
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20071031/483b7d74/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the whatwg
mailing list