- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 23:06:19 -0400
- 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 exists. -Boris
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2011 03:06:47 UTC