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

Re: [WebIDL] Simplify callbacks

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:27:11 -0800
To: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.v4p93lbh64w2qv@annevk-macbookpro.local>
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 00:06:49 -0800, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> As others have pointed out, I think this is entirely the wrong direction  
> to go.
>
> The whole point of being able to pass in an object and have a function
> called on that object is to allow the page to have an object which
> registers as a listener to several callbacks and reacts to all of them
> appropriately.
>
> If you are just listening to a single callback you might as well use a
> function with a closure.
>
> However if all callbacks use the same function name, then we've lost
> all advantages of using an object with member functions since all
> callbacks would go to the same member function.
>
> Instead we should encourage callbacks to use descriptive names for the
> callback function so that it makes sense to have a observer object
> which listens to multiple callbacks using separate functions.

Given the many many callbacks that use handleEvent() it seems that ship  
has sailed.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Thursday, 10 November 2011 11:27:56 UTC

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