W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: Web Alarm API - idiomatic check

From: Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 14:44:45 +0100
Message-ID: <5193914D.5010200@lamouri.fr>
To: public-script-coord@w3.org
On 09/05/13 21:42, Christophe Dumez - SISA wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I commented on that bug. If I remember correctly, clear() was added for consistency with the Contact API.
> It is merely a convenience function so I don't have strong feeling either way.
> 
> However, I do think that clear() is a lot more readable than getPendingAlarms().then(alarms=>alarms.forEach(x=>x.cancel()));

.clear() has a performance advantage compared to
.getPendingAlarms().then(alarms=>alarms.forEach(x=>x.cancel())): when
you use .clear() there will be only one DB access that will remove every
alarm that belongs to the caller. Using .cancel() for each alarm might
do as much calls to the DB which is going to be significantly slower. It
is possible to argue that a clever implementation could delay the DB
access so it can perform multiple operations at the same time but I
think having a .clear() method is a syntax sugar that could make life
easier for developers and implementations and it is worth taking.

--
Mounir
Received on Wednesday, 15 May 2013 13:45:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:37:49 UTC