W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: [chromium-html5] LocalStorage inside Worker

From: Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 07:58:11 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTim3s6OW3f8cbhQ8qFZVROugTxFXR0zbiWKoF4B9@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>, robert@ocallahan.org, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Now I think about it I see where you were coming from with get:

var x = getNamedStorage('x');
x.onsuccess(function(store) {...});

would make more sense like that... and I guess if you include the onsuccess
callback in one function you get:

getNamedStorage('x', function(store) {...});

I reads better this morning than it did last night.


Cheers,
Keean.


On 12 January 2011 07:51, Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com> wrote:

> The callback is doing something 'with' the resource you are waiting for.
> The callback cannot be called 'without' the resource being available. The
> 'with' refers to the 'named storage object' not the registration of the
> callback.
>
> "with" this named storage object "do" function
>
>
> Would be how I read it.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Keean.
>
>
> On 12 January 2011 07:48, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
>> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
>> wrote:
>> >>>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>> would:
>> >>>>> withNamedStorage('x', function(store) {...});
>> >>>>> make more sense from a naming point of view?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I have a different association for 'with', especially in context of
>> >>>> JavaScript, so I prefer 'get'. But others feel free to express an
>> >>>> opinion.
>> >>>
>> >>> In the context of other languages with similar constructs (request a
>> >>> resource which is available within the body of the construct), the
>> >>> "with[resource]" naming scheme is pretty common and well-known.  I
>> >>> personally like it.
>> >>
>> >> Even for asynchronous callbacks? Can you give any examples?
>> >
>> > Not *quite* asynchronous callbacks (that's something fairly specific
>> > to languages that run on an event loop), but close enough.
>> >
>> > Lisp has, for example, macros like WITH-HASH-TABLE-ITERATOR, which
>> > takes a hash, a name for the iterator to be produced, and then a chunk
>> > of code within which the iterator is available.
>> >
>> > Python has its "with" keyword, used like "with file = open('foo'):
>> > doStuffToTheFile(file)", which similarly creates a named resource and
>> > takes a chunk of code within which the resource is available.  I know
>> > that other languages have similar, but off the top of my head I'm
>> > having trouble thinking of them.
>>
>> All of these seem very similar to the 'with' operator in javascript,
>> but quite different from a function which registers a asynchronous
>> callback.
>>
>> / Jonas
>>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 12 January 2011 07:58:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:42 GMT