- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 03:55:08 -0700
- To: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
- Cc: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>, Shawn Wilsher <sdwilsh@mozilla.com>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 3:41 AM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> wrote:
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10349
> One quesiton though: if they pass in null or undefined, do we want to
> interpret this as the argument not being passed in or simply let them
> convert to "undefined" and "null" (which is the default behavior in WebIDL,
> I believe). I feel somewhat strongly we should do the former. Especially
> since the latter would make it impossible to add additional parameters to
> .open() in the future.
I don't understand why it would make it impossible to add optional
parameters in the future. Wouldn't it be a matter of people writing
indexeddb.open("mydatabase", "", SOME_OTHER_PARAM);
vs.
indexeddb.open("mydatabase", null, SOME_OTHER_PARAM);
/ Jonas
Received on Thursday, 12 August 2010 10:56:01 UTC