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

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

From: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 11:59:05 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=FJH-vmCLbh3y_Xax8FyhdUDVyTn=R_r=os0u5@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>, Shawn Wilsher <sdwilsh@mozilla.com>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:

> 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);
>

So "" is assumed to mean "don't update"?  My assumption was that "" meant
empty description.

It seems silly to make someone replace the description with a space (or
something like that) if they truly want to zero it out.  And it seems silly
to ever make your description be "null".  So it seemed natural to make null
and/or undefined be such a signal.

J
Received on Thursday, 12 August 2010 10:59:57 GMT

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