On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
>> Given that open() is one of those functions that are likely to grow in
>> parameters over time, I wonder if we should consider taking an object as the
>> second argument with names/v
That sounds great to me.
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Andrei Popescu
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Pablo Castro
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:
> public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On Be
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Pablo Castro
> wrote:
>>
>> From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org]
>> On Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
>> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:59 AM
>>
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Pablo Castro
wrote:
>
> From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:59 AM
>
>>> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 3:41
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:59 AM
>> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 3:41 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>> > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 3:41 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10349
> > One quesiton though: if they pass in null or undefined, do we want to
> > interpret this as the argument not being passed in o
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 3:41 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10349
> One quesiton though: if they pass in null or undefined, do we want to
> interpret this as the argument not being passed in or simply let them
> convert to "undefined" and "null" (which is t
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10349
One quesiton though: if they pass in null or undefined, do we want to
interpret this as the argument not being passed in or simply let them
convert to "undefined" and "null" (which is the default behavior in WebIDL,
I believe). I feel somewhat s
I don't feel strongly.
I'll file a bug for our proposed solution.
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 1:01 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:33 PM, Jonas Sicking
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Andrei Popescu
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:33 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Andrei Popescu
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jeremy Orlow
>> >> wr
On Thursday, August 12, 2010, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:33 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Tue
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:33 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Andrei Popescu
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jeremy Orlow
> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Jeremy Orlow
> wrote
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Andrei Popescu
wrot
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Andrei Popescu
>>> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Jeremy Orlow
>>>
I am fine with removing it.
-Ben
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Andrei Popescu
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Jeremy Orlow
>>> wrote:
>>> > On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Jonas Sicking
>
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Jeremy Orlow
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Jonas Sicking
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Jeremy Orlow
>>
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Jeremy Orlow
> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:15 PM, Andrei Popescu
> >>
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>> > On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:15 PM, Andrei Popescu
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Jeremy Orlow
>> >>
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:15 PM, Andrei Popescu
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Jeremy Orlow
> wrote:
> >> > I'm pretty sure opening a database with a different de
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:15 PM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>> > I'm pretty sure opening a database with a different description is
>> > actually
>> > already specified: the new one takes p
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:15 PM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> > I'm pretty sure opening a database with a different description is
> actually
> > already specified: the new one takes precedent. Take a look at the
> > algorithm for database openin
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> I'm pretty sure opening a database with a different description is actually
> already specified: the new one takes precedent. Take a look at the
> algorithm for database opening; I'm pretty sure it's there.
> When talking to Andrei earlier ton
I'm pretty sure opening a database with a different description is actually
already specified: the new one takes precedent. Take a look at the
algorithm for database opening; I'm pretty sure it's there.
When talking to Andrei earlier tonight I thought we'd probably want to make
it optional, but n
On 8/9/2010 1:13 PM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
While implementing IDBFactory::open(), we thought that the
"description" argument is optional but we were surprised to find out
it's actually mandatory. Is there any reason not to make this argument
optional? And, assuming it is optional, should the defa
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While implementing IDBFactory::open(), we thought that the
> "description" argument is optional but we were surprised to find out
> it's actually mandatory. Is there any reason not to make this argument
> optional? And, assuming it is
Hi,
While implementing IDBFactory::open(), we thought that the
"description" argument is optional but we were surprised to find out
it's actually mandatory. Is there any reason not to make this argument
optional? And, assuming it is optional, should the default value be
the empty string? Also, how
27 matches
Mail list logo
