- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:23:57 +0000 (UTC)
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Brady Eidson wrote: > > For the sake of simplicity in the API, I see no reason why there > couldn't be a single version of changeVersion() with the 2 strings and 2 > callbacks. Then if a user truly wanted to call changeVersion() but > wasn't interested in the results, they could just pass null for both of > the callbacks. Very good point. I have removed the overloads here. This is not going to be frequently called, so why not require the callbacks. > I suppose the same could be said about executeSql(). Well... I can certainly see people queuing up a bunch of requests and dealing with the errors at the end in the transaction error handler. I am open to requiring that that have an explicit "null" though. Who do other people think? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 26 October 2007 15:23:57 UTC