W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2010

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

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 19:05:45 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTim44SZMp5QIjxCbjbnB3ZjL7k-im6vTg_ulxRBO@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kris Zyp <kris@sitepen.com>
Cc: Pablo Castro <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
There seems to be agreement that delete() is acceptable. Could you file a bug?

/ Jonas

On Monday, July 5, 2010, Kris Zyp <kris@sitepen.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----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> <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-----
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 6 July 2010 02:06:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:39 GMT