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

Re: [IndexedDB] Proposal for async API changes

From: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 18:04:07 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTilriTjyT8mCEJdfmPdBfNV4EU_tgPMASDgaIo0o@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Shawn Wilsher <sdwilsh@mozilla.com>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 8:32 PM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Shawn Wilsher <sdwilsh@mozilla.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On 5/20/2010 11:30 AM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
>> >>
>> >> As someone new to this API, I thought the naming used in the current
>> >> draft is somewhat confusing. Consider the following interfaces:
>> >>
>> >> IndexedDatabase
>> >> IndexedDatabaseRequest,
>> >> IDBDatabaseRequest,
>> >> IDBDatabase,
>> >> IDBRequest
>> >>
>> >> Just by looking at this, it is pretty hard to understand what the
>> >> relationship between these interfaces really is and what role do they
>> >> play in the API. For instance, I thought that the IDBDatabaseRequest
>> >> is some type of Request when, in fact, it isn't a Request at all. It
>> >> also isn't immediately obvious what the difference between
>> >> IndexedDatabase and IDBDatabase really is, etc.
>> >
>> > It should be noted that we did not want to rock the boat too much with
>> > our
>> > proposal, so we stuck with the existing names.  I think the current spec
>> > as
>> > written has the same issues.
>>
>> We kept the existing names specifically to avoid tying bikeshed naming
>> discussions to technical discussion about how these interfaces should
>> behave :)
>
> Totally agree with both of you!  But I think now is as good of a time as any
> to discuss these issues (since they apply to both specs).  In this case, I
> actually don't think this is really bike shedding since we're all agreeing
> the current names are confusing, but I guess the line is fine.  :-)
>

Ok, so it looks like we all agree that these changes are needed. I
think it would be good to update the spec to reflect this so we all
can see the changes in context. How do we go about it? One option
would be to edit the draft that Jonas sent but I think it would be
nicer to edit the real draft. I volunteer to help but I'd need CVS
access....

All the best,
Andrei
Received on Friday, 21 May 2010 17:04:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:38 GMT