- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:31:33 -0700
- To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote: > Replying late here, but: > > On 29/09/11 12:03 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >> From my understanding of the WebIDL spec, the idea is that >> specifications like IndexedDB should throw exceptions which use the >> DOMExceptions interface. The various errors would use different string >> values for .name which would replace the current codes that we have >> now. However, if existing ECMAScript errors can be used, we should use >> those. >> >> Cc'ing Cameron so that he can confirm that this is a correct >> understanding. > > That's not actually what the changes allow. The built-in Error types in > ECMAScript are not available at the IDL level. But I think that it would be > better if they are. I can lift them up to the IDL level, and define what it > means to "throw a TypeError" in other languages. So I actually do think that we want to explicitly throw a TypeError from at least one place in IndexedDB. Which is if you pass a illegal value to a function which takes an enumerated value. For example IDBDatabase.transaction has a second argument which indicates readonly or read/write (we might add other types in the future which is why it's not a bool). Here we'll want to throw a TypeError if someone passes the wrong value. / Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 25 October 2011 00:32:34 UTC