W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-perf@w3.org > June 2011

Re: ISSUE-7: FrameRequestCallback interface should be designated as Callback=FunctionOnly [Request Animation Frame]

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 23:06:19 -0400
Message-ID: <4DE6FE2B.30809@mit.edu>
To: public-web-perf@w3.org
On 6/1/11 10:23 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote:
> then callback could be a unique Function object that is the “JS wrapper”
> for the Java FrameRequestCallback.  Its [[Call]] would call the sample
> method of the wrapped Java object.

That would need to be covered in WebIDL, presumably.  Along with issues 
like whether it's a different Function each time you reflect the object 
or not, and so forth.

Basically, right now WebIDL only defines how to go from an ES object to 
a FunctionOnly DOM interface instance.  It needs to define the reverse 
conversion too, if FunctionOnly is going to be used in specs.

>> What are the benefits of using FunctionOnly?
> Simplicity, I guess.

Simplicity for whom?  It's not simpler for implementors (who need 
infrastructure for the non-FunctionOnly case anyway).  Is it simpler for 
authors?  They don't even need to realize that the non-Function version 

Received on Thursday, 2 June 2011 03:06:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:30 UTC