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: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:23:25 +1200
To: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
Cc: pettay@mappi.helsinki.fi, Savil Srivastava <Savil.Srivastava@microsoft.com>, Web Performance Working Group WG <public-web-perf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20110628002325.GF3167@wok.mcc.id.au>
Olli Pettay:
> > Supporting objects allows one to easily handle the state related to
> > callback handling.

Alex Russell:
> I'm really not seeing the value since unless the function is bound
> somehow, the calling context is going to get reset inside the
> callback.

The sample function is called with the object as the this value.

> The meta point for me, however, is that WebIDL shouldn't be serving
> Java at all. We shouldn't allow a binding language that statistically
> nobody uses make things worse for JavaScript in any way.

I don’t think the decision here about whether only Function objects or
any object with an appropriate property on it can serve as a callback is
influenced at all by other binding languages.

Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 00:24:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:31 UTC