- From: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:07:54 +0000
- To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Kinuko Yasuda <kinuko@chromium.org>
- CC: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 9/11/12 4:06 PM, "Charles McCathie Nevile" <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote: >On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 06:29:07 -0400, Kinuko Yasuda <kinuko@chromium.org> >wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com> wrote: >>> On 9/11/12 11:13 AM, "Kinuko Yasuda" <kinuko@chromium.org> wrote: >>> >>>> I think I like this idea, but I'm also concerned with the fact that >>>> Chromium has been shipping Quota API some time now and there're some >>>> consumers of the old API. > >But if they are going to have to changed from a prefixed API anyway it >should not be a big issue for them to change for real. (Otherwise we're >back in the situation where prefixing isn't going to work and was a bad >idea). Agreed. >On the other hand, I can live with horrible but readily comprehensible >names - and the older I get the happier I am to put up with them Likewise. However, this is not how developers generally feel about it, and I would much rather spend a little time bike-shedding things here (and hopefully providing better APIs) than a lot of time arguing and/or explaining things after the fact. >(or use some library that suits me, while others find their own path to >happiness). This looks good in theory but has associated costs in practice: - extra resource downloads, - need for the developer to maintain these libraries, - potential perf problems (higher memory footprint, slower code path), - no common APIs across different projects. --tobie
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2012 15:08:21 UTC