[whatwg] Comments on updated SQL API

Aaron Boodman aa at google.com
Sat Sep 22 09:32:02 PDT 2007

I agree with both Maciej's points, and want the second one more than he did.

Additional comments:

4.12.3, step 3:

I don't think you should implicitly join active transactions unless
you're inside a callback from a previous executeSql call. Otherwise
all code that wants to call executeSql needs to know about all other
code using it and know to wait if it wants isolation. In the case
where you're a top-level call to executeSql, you should start a new

Some thought needs to be given to the type of transaction that should
be started implicitly. Most database vendors support several. Here is
the list of SQLite's:


I think the "immediate" type is the best all-around choice.

4.12.3, step 5: I think you need to fail with a specific error so that
the caller knows this is the problem and can do the right thing

I don't think closeTransaction() is necessary. For one thing, SQL
already has "COMMIT" and "ROLLBACK". Secondly, if the developer wants
each statement to be it's own transaction, he can make separate
top-level calls.

Other than that, lgtm.

- a

More information about the whatwg mailing list