Re: URLQuery / FormData

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
>> Some of the developers who have been vocal about bad API design
>> support the changes I suggested (and Rick actually suggested them to
>> me a while back, which I forgot about :/), so I'm not sure what you
>> say here captures their concerns accurately.
>
> Also, we shouldn't be doing API design based on who-said-what but
> rather than on technical arguments.

We've always been doing that, no? Still got us that critique.


> My arguments are
>
> * We should make the DOM more similar to ES since it is less API
> surface for users to use.

Agreed. Note that this argument does not imply we should try to
shoehorn a data type that's different into a Map. It means we should
understand how the design applied to Map and other features of
JavaScript, would apply to something like URLQuery and FormData.


> * It enables authors to treat the map as a simple name/value map and
> get a consistent API that exposes that. I hope the emails from Tab and
> I explain how the API is consistent.

I think Tab's email about the dual API on top of one data type makes
sense, but note that there's no precedent for that in JavaScript
(though I suppose down the road promises may become one). From what I
can tell the way JavaScript is being designed today it would not have
these kind of shortcut mechanisms, which I think is why Rick's and
Domenic's input is important since they've been more closely involved
in that process. I'd be interested in hearing what they have to say
though.


-- 
http://annevankesteren.nl/

Received on Tuesday, 10 September 2013 14:22:44 UTC