W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: [indexeddb] New WebIDL Exception Model for IndexedDB

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:31:36 +0200
To: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, "Israel Hilerio" <israelh@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <op.v2em6y0d64w2qv@annevk-macbookpro.local>
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 00:52:39 +0200, Israel Hilerio <israelh@microsoft.com>  
wrote:
> This is our understanding on how the spec needs to change to support the  
> new WebIDL exception handling model.  We would start by removing all of  
> the constants from IDBDatabaseException.  After that, the only thing  
> left would be message.  Do we still need to have this class definition?   
> It seems we can remove it.
>
> In either case, we would have to continue by defining a set of exception  
> types and code mappings. Each exception type will have a code value of 0.
>
> The mapping will look like this:
> UnknownError(0)
> NonTransientError(0)
> NotFoundError(0)
> ConstraintError(0)
> DataError(0)
> NotAllowedError(0)
> TransactionInactiveError(0)
> AbortError(0)
> ReadOnlyError(0)
> TimeoutError(0)
> QuotaError(0)
> VersionError(0)
>
> If we believe the message attribute is still relevant, then we would  
> define the IDBDatabaseException class like this:
> exception IDBDatabaseException: DOMException {
>     DOMString      message;
> };
> Using this approach, IDBDatabaseException will inherit the name and code  
> properties from DOMException.
>
> Is this what you had in mind?

The new approach is outlined here:

   http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10623#c14

I should probably update DOM4 with some easy to use language, including  
how this maps to the code member.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 26 September 2011 07:32:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:47 GMT