Hi Jeremy,
I have edited the spec to use IDB as the prefix of every interface it
defines.
Nikunj
On Jan 26, 2010, at 6:38 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
(Are these comments going into someone's queue somewhere, or should
I be concerned there was no further response? I ask because I'd
kind of like to start checking .idl files into WebKit. :-)
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Jeremy Orlow <jor...@chromium.org>
wrote:
In general, sounds good to me. Note that there already is an
IndexedDatabase interface in your spec though.
I'd also suggest renaming at least the following:
ObjectStore
KeyRange
Environment
DatabaseError
At which point, there's not too many interfaces left without the IDB
prefix (mostly synchronous variants of these interfaces) so maybe we
should just prefix everything?
Thanks!
J
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Nikunj Mehta <nik...@o-micron.com>
wrote:
On Jan 22, 2010, at 12:01 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
The interface names in IndexedDB (and to an extent, WebSQLDatabase)
are very generic. Surprisingly, the specs only collide via the
"Database" interface (which is why I bring this up), but I'm
concerned that names like Cursor, Transaction, and Index (from
IndexedDB) are so generic that they're bound to conflict with other
specs down the road.
Note that all but 5 interfaces in the WebSQLDatabase spec are
prefixed with SQL (for example, SQLTransaction) which helps a lot.
It seems as though the remaining could also be prefixed by SQL to
solve the problem.
That will help.
I'm wondering if the majority of the IndexedDB interfaces should
also have some prefix (like IDB?) as well since many of its terms
are quite generic.
I am fine with the following renaming:
Database -> IndexedDatabase
Cursor -> IDBCursor
Transaction -> IDBTransaction
Index -> IDBIndex
Nikunj
