On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Robin Berjon <ro...@berjon.com> wrote: > On May 12, 2011, at 00:49 , Arun Ranganathan wrote: >> 2. The read methods on FileReader raise a new exception -- >> OperationNotAllowedException -- if multiple concurrent reads are invoked. I >> talked this over with Jonas; we think that rather than reuse DOMException >> error codes (like INVALID_STATE_ERR), these kinds of scenarios should throw >> a distinct exception. Some things on the web (as in life) are simply not >> allowed. It may be useful to reuse this exception in other places. > > I don't have a strong opinion on the ISSUE-182 side of this, but if we're > going to create a new exception type that is expected to be reused by other > specs can we at least learn from the past and not use numerical codes to > identify different variants of the same exception (I'm presuming that other > specs reusing this could want to be more precise about why the operation is > not allowed, e.g. "user said no", or "Gandalf doesn't want you to pass")? > Reuse of DOMException was a long and at times painful coordination effort to > make sure that people didn't use the same codes in their own extensions.
Yes. These should definitely not have a .code property unless needed for backwards compatibility (which shouldn't be the case for exceptions thrown by FileAPI, unless we want to share them with DOM-Core methods). / Jonas
