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

Re: Wrapped implementations of XHR in script

From: Subbu Allamaraju <subbu.allamaraju@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 06:10:15 -0600
Message-ID: <e3f21b1a0610130510w203cd635u87d78596c707cf0d@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
I agree that this is limitation of the scripting language.

What I found interesting with this use case is that, I could either come up
with a totally new script API or just use XHR interface as is. The latter is
more appealing since it would not require component developers to program
differently, and also makes it possible for various toolkits layered on top
of XHR work well in aggregated components (of course, with a factory layer
to provide a wrapped instance).


On 10/12/06, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:57:38 +0200, Subbu Allamaraju
> <subbu.allamaraju@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have a question on the nature of implementations possible for XHR. In
> > particular, would the following be a valid scenario?
> The specification is intended to be implemented by user agents, not script
> libraries. In any case, if the particular scripting language doesn't allow
> you to implement it, it's probably a limitation of that scripting
> language, no? And if you use the getter and setter syntax for attributes
> that at least Firefox supports I guess you should also be able to throw
> exceptions... I've never played much with that though.
> > [...]
> --
> Anne van Kesteren
> <http://annevankesteren.nl/>
> <http://www.opera.com/>

Received on Friday, 13 October 2006 12:10:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:22 UTC