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

Re: [IndexedDB] Constants and interfaces

From: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 20:06:12 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTikf3viYQxjqJS3MG56UvraWDYHgt-6U0nM9GkaA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:

> 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 :)
>

OK, I'll look at our implementation of Node.appendChild and try to reverse
engineer it from that.  Because, as I mentioned, I have no idea what part of
WebIDL specifies the behavior.  :-)

> 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 19:07:04 GMT

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