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

Re: [WebIDL] Simplify callbacks

From: Dominic Cooney <dominicc@google.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 11:21:11 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHnmYQ92htEGE84yWr80mJ2hOMGSgzxcX6RGu45BupLTrco4Ow@mail.gmail.com>
To: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>
Cc: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
I like this idea. [Callback(Event)] EventListener? seems more flexible than
Callback(Event) in that it can use a name other than handleEvent when
dealing with an object.

Web Audio, for example, has a callback for processing audio buffers.
handleEvent is a weird name for this since it doesn’t handle events.

What about (future) callbacks that have return types or raise exceptions?

Dominic

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Travis Leithead <
travis.leithead@microsoft.com> wrote:

>  FWIW, I like the idea. The current indirection through an interface
> annotated with [Callback] has historically been hard for newbies to WebIDL
> to figure out. Anne's concept helps reduce the indirection. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Another syntax could be:****
>
> ** **
>
> addEventListener(DOMString type, [Callback(Event)] EventListener?
> listener, optional boolean capture)****
>
> ** **
>
> Which re-uses the "constructor" parameter syntax (in an extended
> attribute) that we already have in WebIDL.****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* ojan@google.com [mailto:ojan@google.com] *On Behalf Of *Ojan Vafai
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 08, 2011 9:05 AM
> *To:* Anne van Kesteren
> *Cc:* public-script-coord@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: [WebIDL] Simplify callbacks****
>
> ** **
>
> I support this. While it's not the API I'd design from scratch, I think
> it's what we're stuck with and the simplicity provided by doing this
> throughout the platform is worth it.****
>
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 6:47 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
> wrote:****
>
> It seems that all callbacks use handleEvent() and we cannot change that at
> this point I think. We should simplify callback syntax to a) make IDL
> easier to read and b) ensure consistency throughout the platform.
>
> addEventListener(DOMString type, Callback(Event)? listener, optional
> boolean capture)
>
>
> --
> Anne van Kesteren
> http://annevankesteren.nl/****
>
> ** **
>
Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2011 19:21:39 UTC

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