- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:31:36 +0200
- To: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, "Israel Hilerio" <israelh@microsoft.com>
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 00:52:39 +0200, Israel Hilerio <israelh@microsoft.com> wrote: > This is our understanding on how the spec needs to change to support the > new WebIDL exception handling model. We would start by removing all of > the constants from IDBDatabaseException. After that, the only thing > left would be message. Do we still need to have this class definition? > It seems we can remove it. > > In either case, we would have to continue by defining a set of exception > types and code mappings. Each exception type will have a code value of 0. > > The mapping will look like this: > UnknownError(0) > NonTransientError(0) > NotFoundError(0) > ConstraintError(0) > DataError(0) > NotAllowedError(0) > TransactionInactiveError(0) > AbortError(0) > ReadOnlyError(0) > TimeoutError(0) > QuotaError(0) > VersionError(0) > > If we believe the message attribute is still relevant, then we would > define the IDBDatabaseException class like this: > exception IDBDatabaseException: DOMException { > DOMString message; > }; > Using this approach, IDBDatabaseException will inherit the name and code > properties from DOMException. > > Is this what you had in mind? The new approach is outlined here: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10623#c14 I should probably update DOM4 with some easy to use language, including how this maps to the code member. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 26 September 2011 07:32:07 UTC