W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: [quota-api] API change suggestions

From: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:07:54 +0000
To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Kinuko Yasuda <kinuko@chromium.org>
CC: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CC751248.26182%tobie@fb.com>
On 9/11/12 4:06 PM, "Charles McCathie Nevile" <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
wrote:

>On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 06:29:07 -0400, Kinuko Yasuda <kinuko@chromium.org>
>wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/11/12 11:13 AM, "Kinuko Yasuda" <kinuko@chromium.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think I like this idea, but I'm also concerned with the fact that
>>>> Chromium has been shipping Quota API some time now and there're some
>>>> consumers of the old API.
>
>But if they are going to have to changed from a prefixed API anyway it
>should not be a big issue for them to change for real. (Otherwise we're
>back in the situation where prefixing isn't going to work and was a bad
>idea).

Agreed.

>On the other hand, I can live with horrible but readily comprehensible
>names - and the older I get the happier I am to put up with them

Likewise. However, this is not how developers generally feel about it, and
I would much rather spend a little time bike-shedding things here (and
hopefully providing better APIs) than a lot of time arguing and/or
explaining things after the fact.


>(or use some library that suits me, while others find their own path to
>happiness).

This looks good in theory but has associated costs in practice:

- extra resource downloads,
- need for the developer to maintain these libraries,
- potential perf problems (higher memory footprint, slower code path),
- no common APIs across different projects.

--tobie
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2012 15:08:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:54 GMT