W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2012

Re: [IndexedDB] blocked event could be an error

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 17:14:46 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei8-aPXnP1+m4eVm3g4GiBKQ22+iicLi23RPhi3chtpSaA@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Grogan <dgrogan@chromium.org>
Cc: Joćo Eiras <joaoe@opera.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 11:25 AM, David Grogan <dgrogan@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 6:47 AM, Joćo Eiras <joaoe@opera.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>>       http://odinho.html5.org/IndexedDB/spec/Overview.html
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Like I said, I think it's too late to make such a big change. I
>> >> believe it's much too late to make such a change in IE10, and we have
>> >> been shipping Firefox with the current behavior for quite a while now
>> >> (and are about to unprefix with our current behavior).
>> >>
>> >> / Jonas
>> >
>> >
>> > Sorry but it is not late. It's actually quite early and the right time.
>> I don't know by what measure it's "quite early" or "the right time".
> It'd be the right time because though IDB usage is picking up, it's still
> relatively low. Optimally this change would have been made a few months or
> years ago, but now is better than later.
>> We've passed Last Call, there are 3 shipping implementations, all of
>> which have considered their implementation complete enough to switch
>> from prefixed implementations to unprefixed ones. They all implement
>> the behavior that you are proposing to change.
> We'd be ok with changing this, our unprefixedness notwithstanding. I think
> the pain it would save developers down the road would make up for the
> immediate pain it would cause to both vendors and developers. But that's
> just a judgment call, I'm relying on intuition and obviously have no data
> about what the future will hold.
> To balance the concerns of open with complicated semantics and
> backward-compatibility, I propose that we add two methods to IDBFactory:
> openOrFail and openOrBlock.  Most introductory IDB tutorials and examples
> would steer developers towards openOrFail.  The current open method would be
> an alias for openOrBlock.  That open's documentation would be "[deprecated]
> alias for openOrBlock" should give developers some pause about using it just
> because it has the simplest name.

My perception is that it's too late for microsoft to change this for
IE10. I also know that developers will strongly prefer .open to
.openOrX purely based on the length of the name.

I think that leaves us with keeping .open as-is and adding a
.openOrFail function.

I'd be ok with doing that. If we do it for v1 or not I don't have a
strong opinion of.

/ Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2012 00:15:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:49 UTC