W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2008

Re: [Bindings] extended attribute for callback function interfaces?

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:15:06 +1100
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
Message-ID: <20081124051505.GG6808@arc.mcc.id.au>

Jonas Sicking:
> Why do we need the FunctionOnly/PropertyOnly feature? In gecko we don't  
> have that functionality and it hasn't caused any problems that I can  
> think of.

I took David’s feedback to mean that sometimes you want to state that
a single-function interface can’t be implemented by a function (and
added PropertyOnly for that).

> What could make sense to do is to say that if the [Callback] interface  
> has any attributes or more than one function you can't pass a function.

Attributes can’t be specified at all on callback interfaces to be
implemented by a native object.

> But why would we ever want an interface that only had one function that  
> we didn't want to be implementable as a function.

Yes I think that is sensible, and I’d rather have it uniform like this.
If nobody can point to any interfaces that should have non-uniform
behaviour, I’ll happily take the arguments out.

Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Monday, 24 November 2008 05:15:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:12 UTC