W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fxtf-archive@w3.org > July 2019

Re: [fxtf-drafts] [geometry] DOMMatrix constructor is a performance and code portability footgun (#346)

From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2019 23:51:08 +0000
To: public-fxtf-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-508290648-1562197867-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
The CSS Working Group just discussed `DOMMatrix constructor is a performance and code portability footgun`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: Add back in the overflow for DOMMatrix readonly to the DOMMatric constructor`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: DOMMatrix constructor is a performance and code portability footgun<br>
&lt;dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/fxtf-drafts/issues/346<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: krit sent regrets. TabAtkins said makes sense.<br>
&lt;dael> chris: [missed] said he didn't need to be in discussion and happy with what we agreed<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Proposal was [reads]<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: I don't entirely understand it either. Right now the constructor allows either a string or an iterrable object. In certain env if you pass another matrix object as a param it gets serialized to a string and reparsed and act like it works. In others it won't happens and it thorws. Concern this is bad<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: Not sure why sometimes serialized and not others<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: Request is support another constructor overload that you can construct any matrix by copying values of another matrix object<br>
&lt;dael> heycam: Don't understand why it is worker throws exception<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: I suspect some serialization or parsing code not exposed to workers.<br>
&lt;dbaron> yeah, the stringifier is Window-only<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: If behavior in a window is it serializes and parse back again it doesn't sound efficient. Direct cloning is more efficient<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: Diff is because stringifier is DOM only.<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: There's consensus in issue. Asking WG to decalre that<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: I don't see anyone saying it's a bad idea to revert the change<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: And it's part of a change being reverted, not the entire<br>
&lt;dael> heycam: I also don't understand underlying motivation<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Prop: Add back in the overflow for DOMMatrix readonly to the DOMMatric constructor<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Objections?<br>
&lt;heycam> s/motivation of removing overloads in general/<br>
&lt;heycam> s/motivation/motivation of removing overloads in general/<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: Question- do we have multi-impl consensus?<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: I see blink and gecko in comments<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: Prob okay unless someone from WK objects<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: Add back in the overflow for DOMMatrix readonly to the DOMMatric constructor<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/fxtf-drafts/issues/346#issuecomment-508290648 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2019 23:51:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 3 July 2019 23:51:11 UTC