W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2010

[Bug 9790] New: Request is not a good suffix for all the async interfaces in IndexedDB

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 16:28:05 +0000
To: public-webapps@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-9790-2927@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>

           Summary: Request is not a good suffix for all the async
                    interfaces in IndexedDB
           Product: WebAppsWG
           Version: unspecified
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Indexed Database API
        AssignedTo: nikunj.mehta@oracle.com
        ReportedBy: jorlow@chromium.org
         QAContact: member-webapi-cvs@w3.org
                CC: mike@w3.org, public-webapps@w3.org

Andrei Popescu proposed a couple naming changes to the interfaces within
IndedexDB deep within the "[IndexDB] Proposal for async API changes" thread

One of the proposals was to change the "Request" suffix that's used for all the
asynchronous interfaces (but not necessarily the IDBRequest object, since
that's a bit different).

The voices are Andrei, Shawn, Jonas, and Jeremy in that order:

> >>> - The "Request" suffix is now used to denote the asynchronous versions
> >>> of the API interfaces. These interfaces aren't actually Requests of
> >>> any kind, so I would like to suggest changing this suffix. In fact, if
> >>> the primary usage of this API is via its async version, we could even
> >>> drop this suffix altogether and just add "Sync" to the synchronous
> >>> versions?
> >>
> >> I agree that Request seems confusing and seems to be contrary to what other
> >> specs use.  We should try to follow what other specs do here.
> >
> > Agreed on both accounts. There unfortunately isn't much in the way of
> > precedence here. There are three other specs to look at here, which
> > specify API for both workers and main thread.
> >
> > * Web Workers spec
> > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-workers/current-work/ This spec
> > doesn't actually use different interfaces for workers and main thread.
> > * File API http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/ Specifies FileReader
> > and FileReaderSync. The two interfaces are separate and doesn't
> > inherit from a common base
> > * WebSQLDatabase http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/ Specifies
> > separate interfaces, like Database and DatabaseSync. The two
> > interfaces are separate and doesn't inherit from a common base.
> >
> > I think we should follow the same convention as File API and
> > WebSQLDatabase. There really isn't anything to be gained by having a
> > common base interface, it just makes the spec harder to read as
> > functionality is distributed between the base interface and the
> > sync/async interface.
> >
> > I additionally like the naming convention. The async interfaces is
> > probably the interface that people will use first. Additionally that
> > interface is available both to workers and to the main thread. So it
> > makes sense to give the async interface the simpler name.
> Agreed on all counts.  I would add that, if we did decide to keep
> base interfaces, we could always suffix them with Base (which I
> think makes it more clear they're base interfaces)...but it sounds
> like that might not be necessary.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0801.html

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Friday, 21 May 2010 16:28:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 February 2015 14:36:43 UTC