- From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:24:22 +0100
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>
- Cc: "richard.tibbett" <richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com>, public-device-apis <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Le lundi 30 novembre 2009 à 18:26 +0100, Robin Berjon a écrit :
> Actually, it could work without an interface (and whenever we can do
> without these we should — keep in mind that they pollute the global
> namespace). We could just have:
>
> var c = myContacts.add({ name: "Pink Unicorn", urls:
> ["http://shiny-donkey.com/"]});
>
> The object that is passed is essentially treated as a Contact object —
> there is no need to create it. Functionally we get the same thing,
> without pollution. It's much cleaner.
I agree it is cleaner, but I only see working it out for relatively
simple and flat structures — given that the currently proposed Contact
object has sub-structures, and a fairly large number of fields, I’m not
sure it’s entirely realistic.
I guess the factory method could take a single parameter for the name
(since that’s currently the only required attribute), and let the others
be completed through attributes setting.
Dom
Received on Tuesday, 1 December 2009 08:24:50 UTC