W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > December 2009

Re: [contacts] Comments on editors draft of Contacts API

From: Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 15:27:03 +0100
Cc: "richard.tibbett" <richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com>, public-device-apis <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-Id: <BB91A46B-776A-4CEF-8DAE-54995536D21E@robineko.com>
To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
On Dec 1, 2009, at 09:24 , Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
> Le lundi 30 novembre 2009 à 18:26 +0100, Robin Berjon a écrit :
>> Actually, it could work without an interface (and whenever we can do
>> without these we should — keep in mind that they pollute the global
>> namespace). We could just have:
>>  var c = myContacts.add({ name: "Pink Unicorn", urls:
>> ["http://shiny-donkey.com/"]});
>> The object that is passed is essentially treated as a Contact object —
>> there is no need to create it. Functionally we get the same thing,
>> without pollution. It's much cleaner.
> I agree it is cleaner, but I only see working it out for relatively
> simple and flat structures — given that the currently proposed Contact
> object has sub-structures, and a fairly large number of fields, I’m not
> sure it’s entirely realistic.

That's true, I'm just looking for ways to avoid global constructors if at all possible.

> I guess the factory method could take a single parameter for the name
> (since that’s currently the only required attribute), and let the others
> be completed through attributes setting.

Yes, that's one option that I think would work.

Robin Berjon
  robineko — hired gun, higher standards
Received on Tuesday, 1 December 2009 14:27:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:53:41 UTC