Re: [css-houdini-drafts] [css-paint-api] Running author function without proper preparation.

The Working Group just discussed `callback interface vs. not`, and agreed to the following resolutions:

* `RESOLVED: Keep the design as-is`
* `RESOLVED: Conform to webIDL callbacks in the spec`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: callback interface vs. not<br>
&lt;dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/css-houdini-drafts/issues/743<br>
&lt;dael> iank_: We built to be consistant with custom elements API when you register paint or custom element we'll callback to anything that exists and then not touch it again.  We did it to be consistant with custom elements.<br>
&lt;dael> iank_: Other then the APIs which always look up function before you invoke it....our version is strict that's slightly more relaxed. There's small stuff that needs to go in, but it's a question of if we should use callback effects.<br>
&lt;dael> iank_: I prefer the system we've got for consistency and it's slightly faster.<br>
&lt;dael> majidvp: One of the problems with current spec you use the functions but it's the webIDL pattern.<br>
&lt;dael> iank_: We need to change them to webIDL format. We need to change the existing stuff to webIDL callback, but not a full callback interface.<br>
&lt;dael> majidvp: Can you make a callback interface?<br>
&lt;dael> iank_: Yes.<br>
&lt;dael> majidvp: I rememebr some warning in webIDL that you can't construct one.<br>
&lt;dael> iank_: There's now a section in webIDL spec [looks for it]<br>
&lt;dael> majidvp: A callback function can be a callback interface?<br>
&lt;dael> iank_: No, it can be literally the function passed into it. We're expecting a function to be passed into webIDL. Main thing is going through and makeing sure incumbent realm is correct.<br>
&lt;dael> iank_: It's fine if we go with that. Callback interface vs not is the question.<br>
&lt;dael> iank_: I'd prefer as-is to be consistent with custom elements.<br>
&lt;dael> iank_: Unless there's a really good reason why we shouldn't.<br>
&lt;dael> iank_: Here I think sticking with what we have may be a performance hit based o nhow many times we're invoking the function.<br>
&lt;dael> iank_: I'd prefer to keep as is.<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: I'd prefer caching<br>
&lt;dael> iank_: We can also, assuming we code....you can wrap the behavior as well.<br>
&lt;dael> brian: Can you re-register?<br>
&lt;dael> iank_: You can't re-register but you can wrap it up and re-call it.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: Anyone think we should not keep the current design?<br>
&lt;dael> iank_: We'll need to make some small changes to align.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: Objections to keep the design as-is?<br>
&lt;dael> iank_: Do we need to resolve to make changes to use webIDL?<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: Keep the design as-is<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: Conform to webIDL callbacks in the spec<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/css-houdini-drafts/issues/743#issuecomment-379738324 using your GitHub account

Received on Monday, 9 April 2018 12:42:56 UTC