Re: [IndexedDB] Do we need a timeout for VERSION_CHANGE?

2010-12-17 Thread Jonas Sicking
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: >> > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Pablo Castro >> > >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> From: jor...@google.com [mailto:jor...@google

Re: [IndexedDB] Do we need a timeout for VERSION_CHANGE?

2010-12-17 Thread Jeremy Orlow
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Pablo Castro < > pablo.cas...@microsoft.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> From: jor...@google.com [mailto:jor...@google.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy > >> Orlow >

Re: [IndexedDB] Do we need a timeout for VERSION_CHANGE?

2010-12-17 Thread Jonas Sicking
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Pablo Castro > wrote: >> >> From: jor...@google.com [mailto:jor...@google.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy >> Orlow >> Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 2:35 AM >> >> >>In another thread (in the last couple days) we

Re: [IndexedDB] Do we need a timeout for VERSION_CHANGE?

2010-12-16 Thread Jeremy Orlow
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Pablo Castro wrote: > > From: jor...@google.com [mailto:jor...@google.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy > Orlow > Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 2:35 AM > > >>In another thread (in the last couple days) we actually decided to remove > timeouts from normal transactions s

RE: [IndexedDB] Do we need a timeout for VERSION_CHANGE?

2010-12-16 Thread Pablo Castro
From: jor...@google.com [mailto:jor...@google.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 2:35 AM >>In another thread (in the last couple days) we actually decided to remove >>timeouts from normal transactions since they can be implemented as a >>setTimeout+abort. >> >>But

Re: [IndexedDB] Do we need a timeout for VERSION_CHANGE?

2010-12-16 Thread Jeremy Orlow
In another thread (in the last couple days) we actually decided to remove timeouts from normal transactions since they can be implemented as a setTimeout+abort. But I agree that we need a way to abort setVersion transactions before getting the callback (so that we implement timeouts for them as we

[IndexedDB] Do we need a timeout for VERSION_CHANGE?

2010-12-15 Thread Pablo Castro
Regular transactions take a timeout parameter when started, which ensures that we eventually make progress one way or the other if there's an un-cooperating script that won't let go of an object store or something like that. I'm not sure if we discussed this before, it seems that we need to add