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

Re: [IndexedDB] Constants and interfaces

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 11:34:30 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTikZattiYTBH88ZFq1ZNf1xxw6FT6Hfx3ssXzAM3@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
Cc: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> wrote:
> Last we spoke about constants in IndexedDB, (like IDBKeyRange.LEFT_BOUND) I
> believe we had decided that all the objects with constants would have an
> interface object hanging off of window so it's possible to simply say
> "IDBKeyRange.LEFT_BOUND" within JavaScript.  What happens when someone tries
> something like the following JS: |IDBCursor.continue()|?  Given that we're
> using an interface object, I'd assume we throw some sort of exception or
> something?  I tried to figure out the answer in the WebIDL spec (I imagine
> it's somewhere around
> here http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#dfn-interface-object) but it's a
> lot to wade through.  Any advice would be great.

I definitely think we should handle this the same way that all other
interfaces does it. I.e. the same way that
window.Node.appendChild(...) does it. In the Firefox implementation we
just fall back to using our generic code for all this stuff, so
nothing special goes on in the IndexedDB implementation.

And yes, I think WebIDL should be the one defining what should happen.
If it doesn't already someone should file a bug :)

> Also, the spec still has "[NoInterfaceObject]" for a lot of the interfaces.
>  I believe Nikunj did this by accident and was supposed to revert, but I
> guess he didn't?  I should file a bug to get these removed, right?

Please do.

> Another question: Right now all the error constants are on
> IDBDatabaseException which is an exception rather than an interface.  Is
> this allowed?  And even if so, should we put them on IDBDatabaseError
> instead, given that it's the class people will be using more often (with the
> async interface)?  Or maybe we should duplicate the constants in both
> places?  It just feels weird to me that I keep reaching into
> IDBDatabaseException for these constants.

Exception stuff has always confused me, but I think this is how idl
elsewhere does it.

/ Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 24 August 2010 18:35:18 GMT

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