- From: Nikunj Mehta <nikunj@o-micron.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:16:42 -0800
- To: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
- Cc: public-webapps@w3c.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. That will help. > > 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. I am fine with the following renaming: Database -> IndexedDatabase Cursor -> IDBCursor Transaction -> IDBTransaction Index -> IDBIndex Nikunj
Received on Friday, 22 January 2010 16:18:05 UTC