On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Garrett Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Adam Barth <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Garrett Smith <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Instead of "array like", I would like to rather have a NamedCookieMap, >>> which is sort of like a NamedNodeMap that the cookies can be retrieved >>> by an item or namedItem. >> >> That API design assumes that there's only one cookie with a given name >> in each cookie-string. Unfortunately, that is not a valid assumption. > > That is only true in that that example assumes that each cookie is > named. It would be entirely possible for the value to be instead a > collection, as in: > > var x = document.forms[0].elements["radioName"] > > - and the result is that x could be either an element or a collection > of elements.
That seems more complex than just providing a list of cookies. >>> Where is the argument for making the API async? >> >> Please see the discussion earlier in this thread. >> > Can you be more specific? I see: > > | I really think the API should be asynchronous, as to avoid the mess > | that .localStorage currently is. > > But I don't know if that's what you meant by "please see earlier". I mean looking at http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-February/thread.html and reading the thread rooted at http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-February/025300.html. In particular, http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-February/025325.html http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-February/025326.html http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-February/025327.html http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-February/025331.html Those messages also refer to thousands of messages about localStorage. All the synchrony issues with localStorage recur here. >>> Cookies have been synchronous for longer than I have been writing >>> javascript and to my knowledge, nobody has ever complained of that >>> being a problem. >> >> In fact, I've heard a great many complaints about this recently >> (particularly from Darin Fisher), which is part of what prompted me to >> make this proposal. > > Is there a link to that? I missed it. http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-February/025326.html ... plus personal communication. >>> Asynchronous cookies that would mean that cookie setting tests would be >>> harder. >> >> No one is suggesting removing the current document.cookie API. > > Nobody is suggesting you change your tires. Why bring it up? This API does not make it any harder to test whether setting a cookie works because you can still use whatever test you like. If we want to solve the problem of making cookie feature testing easier, we can do that. Adam
