On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Jonas Sicking <jo...@sicking.cc> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Israel Hilerio <isra...@microsoft.com> > wrote: > > On December 15, 2011 10:20 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Joshua Bell <jsb...@chromium.org> > >> wrote: > >> > Is there any particular reason why IDBTransaction.objectStore() and > >> > IDBObjectStore.index() should be usable (i.e. return values vs. raise > >> > exceptions) after the containing transaction has finished? > >> > > >> > Changing the spec so that calling these methods after the containing > >> > transaction has finished raises InvalidStateError (or > >> > TransactionInactiveError) could simplify implementations. > >> > >> That would be ok with me. > >> > >> Please file a bug though. > >> > >> / Jonas > >> > > Do we want to throw two Exceptions or one? > > We currently throw a NOT_ALLOWED_ERR for IDBTransaction.objectStore() > and a TRANSACTION_INACTIVE_ERR for IDBObjectStore.index(). > > > > It seems that we could throw a TRANSACTION_INACTIVE_ERR for both. > > What do you think? > > I think InvalidStateError is slightly more correct (for both > IDBTransaction.objectStore() and IDBObjectStore.index) since we're not > planning on throwing if those functions are called in between > transaction-request callbacks, right? > > I.e. TransactionInactiveError is more appropriate if it's always > thrown whenever a transaction is inactive, which isn't the case here. > > / Jonas > Agreed - that we should be consistent between methods, and that InvalidStateError is slightly more correct for the reason Jonas cites. For reference, Chrome currently throws NOT_ALLOWED_ERR for IDBTransaction.objectStore() but does not throw for IDBObjectStore.index().
