9790 2010-05-21 16:28:05 +0000 Request is not a good suffix for all the async interfaces in IndexedDB 2010-11-01 04:55:32 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WebAppsWG Indexed Database API unspecified All All RESOLVED FIXED P2 normal --- 1 jorlow andreip andreip jonas jorlow mike nikunj.mehta public-webapps public-webapps-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 35799 0 jorlow 2010-05-21 16:28:05 +0000 Andrei Popescu proposed a couple naming changes to the interfaces within IndedexDB deep within the "[IndexDB] Proposal for async API changes" thread [1]. One of the proposals was to change the "Request" suffix that's used for all the asynchronous interfaces (but not necessarily the IDBRequest object, since that's a bit different). The voices are Andrei, Shawn, Jonas, and Jeremy in that order: > >>> - The "Request" suffix is now used to denote the asynchronous versions > >>> of the API interfaces. These interfaces aren't actually Requests of > >>> any kind, so I would like to suggest changing this suffix. In fact, if > >>> the primary usage of this API is via its async version, we could even > >>> drop this suffix altogether and just add "Sync" to the synchronous > >>> versions? > >> > >> I agree that Request seems confusing and seems to be contrary to what other > >> specs use.  We should try to follow what other specs do here. > > > > Agreed on both accounts. There unfortunately isn't much in the way of > > precedence here. There are three other specs to look at here, which > > specify API for both workers and main thread. > > > > * Web Workers spec > > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-workers/current-work/ This spec > > doesn't actually use different interfaces for workers and main thread. > > * File API http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/ Specifies FileReader > > and FileReaderSync. The two interfaces are separate and doesn't > > inherit from a common base > > * WebSQLDatabase http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/ Specifies > > separate interfaces, like Database and DatabaseSync. The two > > interfaces are separate and doesn't inherit from a common base. > > > > I think we should follow the same convention as File API and > > WebSQLDatabase. There really isn't anything to be gained by having a > > common base interface, it just makes the spec harder to read as > > functionality is distributed between the base interface and the > > sync/async interface. > > > > I additionally like the naming convention. The async interfaces is > > probably the interface that people will use first. Additionally that > > interface is available both to workers and to the main thread. So it > > makes sense to give the async interface the simpler name. > > Agreed on all counts.  I would add that, if we did decide to keep > base interfaces, we could always suffix them with Base (which I > think makes it more clear they're base interfaces)...but it sounds > like that might not be necessary. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0801.html 36333 1 andreip 2010-06-22 13:56:55 +0000 Fixed in http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndexedDB/rev/378e74fd2c7a 36431 2 nikunj.mehta 2010-06-26 23:59:54 +0000 Because all the abstract interfaces were removed, it was necessary to correct NoInterfaceObject modifiers on IDBObjectStore, IDBCursor, IDBObjectStoreSync, and IDBCursorSync 41734 3 jonas 2010-10-25 18:09:00 +0000 Nikunj: You reopened this, what is left here to do? 41911 4 jonas 2010-11-01 04:55:32 +0000 I'm closing this for now as "Request" is indeed no longer used as a suffix. Nikunj, if you think there's still something missing here, please do reopen this bug or file a new one.