On Mar 15, 2010, at 10:45 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Jeremy Orlow <jor...@chromium.org> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Nikunj Mehta <nik...@o-micron.com> wrote: > On Feb 18, 2010, at 9:08 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: >> 2) In the spec, dynamic transactions and the difference between static and >> dynamic are not very well explained. > > Can you propose spec text? > > In 3.1.8 of http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebSimpleDB/ in the first > paragraph, adding a sentence would probably be good enough. "If the scope is > dynamic, the transaction may use any object stores or indexes in the > database, but if another transaction touches any of the resources in a manner > that could not be serialized by the implementation, a RECOVERABLE_ERR > exception will be thrown on commit." maybe? > > By the way, are there strong use cases for Dynamic transactions? The more > that I think about them, the more out of place they seem.
Dynamic transactions are in common place use in server applications. It follows naturally that client applications would want to use them. Consider the use case where you want to view records in entityStore A, while, at the same time, modifying another entityStore B using the records in entityStore A. Unless you use dynamic transactions, you will not be able to perform the two together. The dynamic transaction case is particularly important when dealing with asynchronous update processing while keeping the UI updated with data. > > > Background: Dynamic and static are the two types of transactions in the > IndexedDB spec. Static declare what resources they want access to before > they begin, which means that they can be implemented via objectStore level > locks. Dynamic decide at commit time whether the transaction was > serializable. This leaves implementations with two options: > > 1) Treat Dynamic transactions as "lock everything". This is not consistent with the spec behavior. Locking everything is the static global scope. > > 2) Implement MVCC so that dynamic transactions can operate on a consistent > view of data. (At times, we'll know a transaction is doomed long before > commit, but we'll need to let it keep running since only .commit() can raise > the proper error.) > > Am I missing something here? > > > If we really expect UAs to implement MVCC (or something else along those > lines), I would expect other more advanced transaction concepts to be > exposed. If we expect most v1 implementations to just use objectStore locks > and thus use option 1, then is there any reason to include Dynamic > transactions? > > J
