W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2010

Re: [IndexedDB] Promises (WAS: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2)

From: Kris Zyp <kris@sitepen.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 11:55:33 -0700
Message-ID: <4B900225.8050206@sitepen.com>
To: Nikunj Mehta <nikunj@o-micron.com>
CC: Aaron Boodman <aa@google.com>, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@google.com>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
 


On 3/4/2010 11:46 AM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
>
> On Mar 4, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Kris Zyp wrote:
>
>>
>> On 3/4/2010 11:08 AM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
> [snip]
>>>
>>> * There is nothing preventing JS authors from implementing a
>>> promise-style API on top of IndexedDB, if that is what they
>>> want to do.
>>>
>> Yes, you can always make an API harder to use so that JS authors
>> have more they can do with it ;).
>
> You will agree that we don't want to wait for one style of
> promises to win out over others before IndexedDB can be made
> available to programmers. Till the soil and let a thousand flowers
> bloom.

The IndexedDB spec isn't and can't just sit back and not define the
asynchronous interface. Like it or not, IndexedDB has defined a
promise-like entity with the |DBRequest| interface. Why is inventing a
new (and somewhat ugly) flower better than designing based on the many
flowers that have already bloomed?

- -- 
Kris Zyp
SitePen
(503) 806-1841
http://sitepen.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
 
iEYEARECAAYFAkuQAiUACgkQ9VpNnHc4zAzZkgCeIjAVz56S3sR5BeKt8lZPGMJo
6rYAoJ4x4WJN9W9LhdXkbbJaT94A8/om
=oJbA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 4 March 2010 18:58:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:37 GMT