Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
 


On 6/15/2010 12:36 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Pablo Castro
> <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>> We developed a similar trick where we can indicate in the IDL
>>>> that different names are used for scripted languages and for
>>>> compiled languages.
>>
>>>> So all in all I believe this problem can be overcome. I
>>>> prefer to focus on making the JS API be the best it can be,
>>>> and let other languages take a back seat. As long as it's
>>>> solvable without too much of an issue (such as large
>>>> performance penalties) in other languages.
>>
>> I agree we can sort this out and certainly limitations on the
>> implementation language shouldn't surface here. The issue is more
>> whether folks care about a C++ binding (or some other language
>> with a similar issue) where we'll have to have a different name
>> for this method.
>>
>> Even though I've been bringing this up I'm ok with keeping
>> delete(), I just want to make sure we understand all the
>> implications that come with that.
>
> I'm also ok with keeping delete(), as well as continue(). This
> despite realizing that it might mean that different C++
> implementations might map these names differently into C++.
>
> / Jonas
>
>

It sounds like returning to delete() for deleting records from a store
is agreeable. Can the spec be updated or are we still sticking with
remove()?

- -- 
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/
 
iEYEARECAAYFAkwyBO4ACgkQ9VpNnHc4zAyx4wCdHvOjnGlUyAj4Jbf0bZAlQqmK
6hEAoMApBEMfgaPaa8R/U9kNGG25JoNb
=lG0c
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----