W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: [IndexedDB] Numeric constants vs enumerated strings

From: Odin Hørthe Omdal <odinho@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:44:16 +0100
To: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "Simon Pieters" <simonp@opera.com>, "Israel Hilerio" <israelh@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Joshua Bell" <jsbell@chromium.org>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.wab8b2xr49xobu@odinho.eng.oslo.osa>
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 00:34:40 +0100, Israel Hilerio <israelh@microsoft.com>  
wrote:

> We have several internal and external teams implementing solutions on  
> IndexedDB for IE10 and Win8.  They are looking for a finalized spec  
> sooner than later to ensure the stability of their implementations.   
> Every time we change the APIs, they have to go back and update their  
> implementations.  This activity sets them back and makes them loose  
> confidence in the platform.

Hmmmm...

If you implement the fallback that Sicking mentioned, just changing the  
value of the e.g. IDBTransaction.READ_WRITE from 1 to "read-write" (or  
whatever we'll choose to call it), then all that code will continue to  
work.

It can be treated like an internal change. All the code I've seen from  
Microsoft so far has used the constants (which is how it's supposed to be  
used anyway) - so updating then won't be necessary.


This is a change for the huge masses of people which will come after us  
and *not* be as wise and just input 1 or 2 or whatever that doesn't tell  
us anything about what the code is doing.

IMHO it's a very small price to pay for a bigger gain.

-- 
Odin Hørthe Omdal · Core QA, Opera Software · http://opera.com /
Received on Monday, 27 February 2012 12:44:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:50 GMT