Re: Interface names in IndexedDB (and WebSQLDatabase)

Hi Jeremy,

I have edited the spec to use IDB as the prefix of every interface it  
defines.

Nikunj
On Jan 26, 2010, at 6:38 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:

> (Are these comments going into someone's queue somewhere, or should  
> I be concerned there was no further response?  I ask because I'd  
> kind of like to start checking .idl files into WebKit.  :-)
>
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>  
> wrote:
> In general, sounds good to me.  Note that there already is an  
> IndexedDatabase interface in your spec though.
>
> I'd also suggest renaming at least the following:
>
> ObjectStore
> KeyRange
> Environment
> DatabaseError
>
> At which point, there's not too many interfaces left without the IDB  
> prefix (mostly synchronous variants of these interfaces) so maybe we  
> should just prefix everything?
>
> Thanks!
> J
>
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Nikunj Mehta <nikunj@o-micron.com>  
> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>