- From: Anssi Kostiainen <anssi.kostiainen@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:10:07 +0300
- To: "ext richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com" <richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com>
- Cc: "brian@westcoastlogic.com" <brian@westcoastlogic.com>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
On 13.10.2009, at 19.21, ext richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com wrote: >> >> On 9.10.2009, at 17.12, ext richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com wrote: >> >> The find method should perhaps be described as something like >> (reflecting the latest Contacts API ED): >> >> sequence<Contact> find (in sequence<ContactFilter> filters); >> > Suggesting Object was to allow for one ContactFilter to be passed OR a > sequence of ContactFilter objects to be passed, effectively allowing > represention of 1 or n ContactFilters. Having said that, your proposal > is simpler and consistent, though an Array object will always be > required, even for just a single ContactFilter object. I should have > explained the rational for Object in my original email. I can live > with > either proposal. I reflected this issue against jQuery API [1] which is considered intuitive by many developers and it seems many of its methods* use overloading similar to your proposal. Thus it seems justifiable to also support passing one ContactFilter object directly to the find method w/o forcing the object to be wrapped into an Array (albeit that's also supported). This leads us to the following interface definition for the overloaded find method: sequence<Contact> find (in ContactFilter filter); sequence<Contact> find (in sequence<ContactFilter> filters); (The argument passing convention discussed herein is related to the ISSUE-1. We could take a look at the other established JavaScript libraries as well for more extensive analysis if that's seen beneficial by the group.) -Anssi [1] <http://api.jquery.com> * At least val(), not(), add() $.param(), jQuery() and queue().
Received on Wednesday, 14 October 2009 10:10:38 UTC