W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2010

Re: Interface names in IndexedDB (and WebSQLDatabase)

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 01:03:50 -0800
Cc: public-webapps@w3c.org
Message-id: <3D6BD0A4-77EB-4CA0-B48F-64D90329FAAB@apple.com>
To: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>

On Jan 22, 2010, at 12:01 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:

> The interface names in IndexedDB (and to an extent, WebSQLDatabase) are very generic.  Surprisingly, the specs only collide via the "Database" interface (which is why I bring this up), but I'm concerned that names like Cursor, Transaction, and Index (from IndexedDB) are so generic that they're bound to conflict with other specs down the road.
> Note that all but 5 interfaces in the WebSQLDatabase spec are prefixed with SQL (for example, SQLTransaction) which helps a lot.  It seems as though the remaining could also be prefixed by SQL to solve the problem.
> I'm wondering if the majority of the IndexedDB interfaces should also have some prefix (like IDB?) as well since many of its terms are quite generic.

Sounds like a good idea. I can certainly image Cursor, Transaction and Index being desirable index names for other interfaces in the Web platform in the future. It would also be good not to collide with the Database interface name.

Received on Friday, 22 January 2010 09:04:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:04 UTC