W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: Constructible Exceptions

From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 00:19:40 +0100
To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, public-script-coord@w3.org
Message-ID: <B36244D097184231A06707CD69FE478C@marcosc.com>



On Monday, 26 March 2012 at 03:44, Cameron McCormack wrote:

> Marcos Caceres:
> > Yeah, I get that too. I guess that is the trade off between the
> > flexibility and security the Web platform provides and my ideal of
> > all objects created equal. I guess an environment like Node.js would
> > be more appropriate for this kind of thing (as it doesn't provide any
> > platform DOM objects, hence there all object would be created equal…
> > unless implemented in C++ and then exposed as platform objects:)).
>  
>  
>  
> Just to be clear, platform objects need not be implemented in C++. They  
> can be implemented in JS too, as long as all the platform objects  
> provided by the system "know" about each other (i.e. can access that  
> shared state). So if the browser, as the implementation of the DOM  
> described with Web IDL, exposes some objects implemented in pure JS then  
> that's fine. That's pretty much the essence of the notion of platform  
> objects here: they need to be part of the same "implementation".

Understood.  
>  
> Jonas at one pointed suggested renaming interfaces to classes, since  
> that is probably a more accurate description of what they are, but I  
> didn't end up doing that (mostly just because it's always been written  
> as "interface" in IDL).

Yeah, these WebIDL things are certainly something in between the two… "Interclass" :P  

Anyway, thanks for the explanations. It's been really helpful.    

--  
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 23:20:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:30:05 UTC