Re: Geolocation V2 and backwards compatibility

I think I want to use the name 'requireCoords'.  I just can't find
myself wanting to type out that other name.


On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 4:15 AM, Steve Block <steveblock@google.com> wrote:
>> Why would it be desirable to have Position.coordinates, but not Coordinates.latitude?
> This is to allow an implementation to return partial coordinates (eg
> altitude) without latitude and longitude. This could be useful in some
> usecases.
>
>> Or, in the interests of consistency, doesn't "requestCoords" make more sense?
> No, because of the interaction with the address data that will be
> available in V2. I think that requestCoordinates implies 'I'd like to
> get coordinates, but if you can't supply them, but can supply
> something else (eg an address), count this as success'. As a result,
> Position.coordinates could still be null. The flag needs to replicate
> the semantics of the V1 API - 'If you can't supply latitude, longitude
> and accuracy, even if you can supply other data, count this as
> failure' - so Position.coordinates is always non-null.
> requireCoordinates or requireLatitudeLongitudeAccuracy seem to capture
> this better.
>
> On a related note, we intend to add PositonOptions.requestAddress to
> mean that an address is desired, but not required. This would default
> to false to avoid the expense of an address look-up server-side when
> not required.
>
> Steve
>
> --
> Google UK Limited
> Registered Office: Belgrave House, 76 Buckingham Palace Road, London SW1W 9TQ
> Registered in England Number: 3977902
>

Received on Thursday, 30 June 2011 14:36:52 UTC