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

Re: [IndexedDB] question about description argument of IDBFactory::open()

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 03:55:08 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTingX2q8NrcrphaCYr11hA_9W6N-ihwCBS1JeKfk@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
Cc: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>, Shawn Wilsher <sdwilsh@mozilla.com>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 3:41 AM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> wrote:
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10349
> One quesiton though: if they pass in null or undefined, do we want to
> interpret this as the argument not being passed in or simply let them
> convert to "undefined" and "null" (which is the default behavior in WebIDL,
> I believe).  I feel somewhat strongly we should do the former.  Especially
> since the latter would make it impossible to add additional parameters to
> .open() in the future.

I don't understand why it would make it impossible to add optional
parameters in the future. Wouldn't it be a matter of people writing

indexeddb.open("mydatabase", "", SOME_OTHER_PARAM);

vs.

indexeddb.open("mydatabase", null, SOME_OTHER_PARAM);

/ Jonas
Received on Thursday, 12 August 2010 10:56:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:40 GMT