W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > April 2006

Re: Some XHR comments

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 03:36:11 -0700
Message-ID: <44339D9B.6000605@sicking.cc>
To: public-webapi@w3.org

>> [re getting an XMLHttpRequest object]
>> What about non-ECMAScript implementations?
> If you want to worry about non-ECMAScript implementations (which may
> conflict with "The goal of this specification is to document a minimum
> set of interoperable features based on existing implementations", but
> perhaps it's a good idea to allow other languages from the start), then
> you will have to provide a mechanism for getting a new XMLHttpRequest
> object that doesn't rely on ES-specifics such as calling [[Construct]]
> on some function object.  Some interface would have to provide a
> function that creates an XMLHttpRequest, such as
>   interface WindowXMLHttpRequest {
>       XMLHttpRequest createXMLHttpRequest();
>   }
> and then objects that implement Window could be required to implement
> WindowXMLHttpRequest if the implementation supports XHR (assuming Window
> objects are the most appropriate for this; what would be the
> alternative, DOMImplementation?).

I don't think Windows are the place to put a bootstrapping function. The 
only argument I can see for putting it on Window objects is that it is 
the global scope, however that is only the case in ECMAScript and in 
ECMAScript bootstrapping is done through |new XMLHttpRequest()|.

DOMImplementation would make some sense though.

However, I don't strongly feel there is a need to have a unified 
bootstrapping process. Bootstrapping has to be language specific since 
even if you add a bootstrap for method on some object you are left with 
having to define a way to get to that object. I.e. the more 
bootstrapping indirection you add the more cumbersome it gets to 
instantiate objects and the problem will always remain anyway.

And creating objects is something that works vastly different in 
different languages. While |new XMLHttpRequiest| makes sense in 
|do_CreateInstance("@mozilla.org/xmlextras/xmlhttprequest;1")| makes 
sense in XPCOM.

However, I come from a browser world, so I'm probably biased.

/ Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 5 April 2006 10:36:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:20 UTC