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

Re: random notes on the XHR editorial notes

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 14:24:52 -0700
Message-ID: <443435A4.2080306@sicking.cc>
To: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Cc: Public Web API <public-webapi@w3.org>

Robin Berjon wrote:
>  "Need to define which IDL specification we are going to conform to,  
> if any."
> 
> This came up on xml-dev, where OMG IDL was blamed for the fact that  we 
> have createElement() and createElementNS() in the DOM instead of  just 
> one (there may be other reasons). I am all for forgetting about  OMG 
> IDL, but I think we need to consider the following:

Some languages, like ECMAScript, don't have support for overloading, so 
blaiming OMG IDL is a bit wrong.

>  - some folks generate Java interfaces from the IDLs. I think we're  
> safe so long as we generate a binding from what we have (which is  easy 
> to add to ReSpec, I can do it)
>  - some implementations (Mozilla?) seem to use OMG IDL. Would they  be 
> fine with something else, or with hacking the something else  
> themselves, or if we generated something more kosher and let them do  
> whatever workaround they do to get around it for stuff they already  
> support?

Overloaded functions are a pain in mozilla. Since ECMAScript doesn't 
have overloaded functions we end up having custom glue code everywhere 
overloading and optional arguments exist. And since we're using OMG IDL 
we have to stick functions with the same name in separate interfaces 
which of course isn't a useful solution in the long run.

I can be done, but it's something I rather avoid.

/ Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 5 April 2006 21:24:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:54 GMT