W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Storage 'length' and enumeration

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:07:04 +0000 (UTC)
To: John J Barton <johnjbarton@johnjbarton.com>
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0904292205140.829@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, John J Barton wrote:
> Yes and Firebug has to have special code for HTMLCollection because this 
> mistake was made in the past. Now we will have to have different special 
> code for Storage. Rather than modeling new API on old mistakes, consider 
> learning from the past experience and take a direction that developers 
> will find less confusing.  Pseudo-arrays with "except... this and that" 
> makes APIs intricate and puzzling.  A simpler and less ambiguous 
> approach would be better in my opinion.

It's not an array or a pseudo-array. It's an enumerable JS host object.

Firefox will have to have special code to implement Storage anyway; why is 
more special code to show it in Firebug a bad thing? In fact, it's 
probably a good thing, since for Storage you probably don't want to be 
showing the data in the debugger all the time anyway (since that has 
performance implications).

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 29 April 2009 22:07:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:12:53 UTC