W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: The Structured Clone Wars

From: Tom Van Cutsem <tomvc.be@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:26:05 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKDfNj9yLBrD+wbwPkijFtTiFS+g0o8Gu=AoeK8kpVXFgTYkkg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jason Orendorff <jason.orendorff@gmail.com>
Cc: "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>, public-script-coord@w3.org, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
2011/7/15 Jason Orendorff <jason.orendorff@gmail.com>

> Back to Mark S. Miller:
> > And finally there's the issue raised by David on the es-discuss thread:
> What
> > should the structured clone algorithm do when encountering a proxy? The
> > algorithm as coded below will successfully "clone" proxies, for some
> meaning
> > of clone. Is that the clone behavior we wish for proxies?
>
> The structured cloning algorithm should be redefined in terms of the
> ES object protocol. This seems necessary anyway, for precision.
>
> The appropriate behavior regarding proxies would fall out of that;
> proxies would not have to be specifically mentioned in the algorithm's
> spec.
>

+1. This also matches with the behavior of JSON.stringify(aProxy):
serializing a proxy as data should simply query the object's own properties
by calling the appropriate traps (in the case of JSON, this includes
intercepting the call to 'toJSON').

(Every algorithm that mentions proxies, or really any other object
> type, by name is one broken piece of a Proxy.isProxy implementation.)
>
> Cheers,
> -j
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
Received on Saturday, 16 July 2011 20:15:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:30:04 UTC