W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-geolocation@w3.org > July 2008

RE: skeleton Geolocation API

From: Shyam Habarakada <shyamh@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:14:04 -0700
To: Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>, Chris Prince <cprince@google.com>
CC: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>, Alec Berntson <alecb@windows.microsoft.com>, Aaron Boodman <aa@google.com>, "public-geolocation@w3c.org" <public-geolocation@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <F2726D43C21D084F81F9C887BE881BD15514FA8566@NA-EXMSG-C105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

The two options only present stylistic preferences at this point. In the two callbacks approach, the underlying code does the status check. In the one callback with status code as an argument approach, the calling code does the status check. IMO, the choice here is not a scientific decision.

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Turner [mailto:doug.turner@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 4:22 PM
To: Chris Prince
Cc: Andrei Popescu; Alec Berntson; Aaron Boodman; Shyam Habarakada; public-geolocation@w3c.org
Subject: Re: skeleton Geolocation API

and having two callback instead of one-that-passes- a-status-code  is
because of what?

On Jul 24, 2008, at 12:11 PM, Chris Prince wrote:

>> So how about having both callbacks required?
>
> Makes sense to me.
Received on Friday, 25 July 2008 00:14:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 22 March 2012 18:13:39 GMT