Sounds good! I've updated the bug to reflect this decision.
Israel
On Friday, December 16, 2011 3:37 PM, Joshua Bell wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Jonas Sicking
mailto:jo...@sicking.cc>> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Israel Hilerio
mailto:isra...@microsoft.com>> wrote:
> On
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Israel Hilerio
> wrote:
> > On December 15, 2011 10:20 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Joshua Bell
> >> wrote:
> >> > Is there any particular reason why IDBTransaction.object
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> On December 15, 2011 10:20 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Joshua Bell
>> wrote:
>> > Is there any particular reason why IDBTransaction.objectStore() and
>> > IDBObjectStore.index() should be usable (i.e. retur
On December 15, 2011 10:20 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Joshua Bell
> 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 transa
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Joshua Bell 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 thes
