- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 19:05:45 -0700
- To: Kris Zyp <kris@sitepen.com>
- Cc: Pablo Castro <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
There seems to be agreement that delete() is acceptable. Could you file a bug? / Jonas On Monday, July 5, 2010, Kris Zyp <kris@sitepen.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > > On 6/15/2010 12:36 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:20 > PM, Pablo Castro >> <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com> <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com> wrote: >>>>> We developed a similar trick where we can indicate > in the IDL >>>>> that different names are used for scripted languages > and for >>>>> compiled languages. >>> >>>>> So all in all I believe this problem can be > overcome. I >>>>> prefer to focus on making the JS API be the best it > can be, >>>>> and let other languages take a back seat. As long as > it's >>>>> solvable without too much of an issue (such as large >>>>> performance penalties) in other languages. >>> >>> I agree we can sort this out and certainly limitations on the >>> implementation language shouldn't surface here. The issue is > more >>> whether folks care about a C++ binding (or some other > language >>> with a similar issue) where we'll have to have a different > name >>> for this method. >>> >>> Even though I've been bringing this up I'm ok with keeping >>> delete(), I just want to make sure we understand all the >>> implications that come with that. >> >> I'm also ok with keeping delete(), as well as continue(). This >> despite realizing that it might mean that different C++ >> implementations might map these names differently into C++. >> >> / Jonas >> >> > > It sounds like returning to delete() for deleting records from a store > is agreeable. Can the spec be updated or are we still sticking with > remove()? > > - -- > Kris Zyp > SitePen > (503) 806-1841 > http://sitepen.com > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > > iEYEARECAAYFAkwyBO4ACgkQ9VpNnHc4zAyx4wCdHvOjnGlUyAj4Jbf0bZAlQqmK > > 6hEAoMApBEMfgaPaa8R/U9kNGG25JoNb > > =lG0c > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 6 July 2010 02:06:21 UTC