- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:32:14 -0700
- To: Israel Hilerio <israelh@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "Cameron McCormack (cam@mcc.id.au)" <cam@mcc.id.au>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Israel Hilerio <israelh@microsoft.com> wrote:
> On Monday, October 17, 2011 9:14 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote:
>> On 17/10/11 7:19 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> > I sort of like the short-cut since it seems like a very common case
>> > for web developers to want to create a transaction which only uses a
>> > single objectStore.
>> >
>> > But I agree it's not a huge win for developers as far as typing goes
>> > (two characters).
>> >
>> > I *think* we can move the validation into the IDL binding these days.
>> > Something like:
>> >
>> > interface IDBDatabase {
>> > ...
>> > transaction(DOMStringList storeNames, optional unsigned short mode);
>> > transaction(DOMString[] storeNames, optional unsigned short mode);
>> > transaction(DOMString storeNames, optional unsigned short mode);
>> > ...
>> > }
>> >
>> > The WebSocket constructor does something similar.
>> >
>> > cc'ing Cameron to confirm that this is valid. It *might* even be the
>> > case that DOMStringList passes as a DOMString[]?
>>
>> The above IDL is valid (assuming you stick "void" before the function names).
>> Although DOMStringList is array like enough to work if you are not
>> overloading based on that argument (it has a .length and array index
>> properties), in this case because the function call is only distinguished based
>> on the first argument you will need those separate declarations.
>>
>> You can see what happens when a value is passed as that first parameter
>> here:
>>
>> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#dfn-overload-resolution-algorithm
>>
>> If it's a DOMStringList object, since that is an interface type, it will definitely
>> select the first overload. And if you pass an Array object or a platform array
>> object, then the second overload will be selected.
>>
>
> After discussing this with some folks on our side, this change makes sense to us.
> There seem to be clear advantages at providing these overloads.
> I'm guessing we want to make this change to the webIDL of IDBDatabase, correct?
Yup. Sounds good to me.
/ Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 25 October 2011 00:33:19 UTC