- From: Pablo Castro <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:28:20 +0000
- To: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- CC: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>, Shawn Wilsher <sdwilsh@mozilla.com>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
From: public-webapps-request@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:59 AM >> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: >> 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); >> >> So "" is assumed to mean "don't update"? My assumption was that "" meant empty description. >> >> It seems silly to make someone replace the description with a space (or something like that) if they truly want to zero it out. And it seems silly to ever make your description be >> "null". So it seemed natural to make null and/or undefined be such a signal. Given that open() is one of those functions that are likely to grow in parameters over time, I wonder if we should consider taking an object as the second argument with names/values(e.g. open("mydatabase", { description: "foo" }); ). That would allow us to keep the minimum specification small and easily add more parameters later without resulting un hard to read code that has a bunch of "undefined" in arguments. The only thing I'm not sure is if there is precedent of doing this in one of the standard APIs. Thanks -pablo
Received on Thursday, 12 August 2010 17:28:56 UTC