- From: Ricardo Varela <phobeo@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 11:36:08 +0100
- To: Anselm R Garbe <garbeam@gmail.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>, public-device-apis@w3.org
I'm with the original point of view on this one too (like Anselm and
Andrei). I think callbacks make the syntax way simpler
Saludos!
---
ricardo
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Anselm R Garbe <garbeam@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28 April 2010 11:00, Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> as you will recall, during the face to face in Prague we discussed the possibility of switching a lot of our API calls (mostly the asynchronous ones) to object literal rather than positional. This was generally perceived favourably but we resolved to first ask Geo why they hadn't opted for the same. Andrei kindly replied[0].
>>
>> Geo felt that for them, passing options would not be the most common case so that getCurrentPostion(scb) would beat getCurrentPostion({ success: scb}). Upon reflection, I think that our situation is more complex. Some of our APIs are more likely to have options on a very regular, even systematic basis (e.g. Contacts), and it wouldn't hurt to have a little consistency. I'd therefore like to propose that we go for object literal on all of our asynchronous calls.
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> [0]http://www.w3.org/mid/n2n708552fb1004071110x6d98c6e6t85e83eef0eef52de@mail.gmail.com
>
> I agree with Andrei. Can't see why your current situation is more complex.
>
> Cheers,
> Anselm
>
>
--
Ricardo Varela - http://phobeo.com - http://twitter.com/phobeo
"Though this be madness, yet there's method in 't"
Received on Wednesday, 28 April 2010 12:21:51 UTC