W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: [websockets] Getting WebSockets API to Last Call

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 00:54:37 +0000 (UTC)
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
cc: public-webapps@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1107140053150.3775@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Wed, 13 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> >> On 7/11/11 8:23 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >> > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Ian Hickson<ian@hixie.ch>  wrote:
> >> > > > On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On the other hand, we should [not] do things now that are 
> >> > > > > likely to create a more complicated or inconsistent platform 
> >> > > > > in the future.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I agree, indeed that's my main reason for not wanting to make 
> >> > > > objects inherit from EventTarget. :-)
> >> > >
> >> > > I think adding EventTarget to the chain is a simplification as it 
> >> > > makes that interface more consistent with the majority of other 
> >> > > ones.
> >> >
> >> > I mean in general, on any interface.
> >> >
> >> > IMHO nothing should inherit from EventTarget. That some interfaces 
> >> > do in the specs today is a relatively new development and IMHO one 
> >> > that will complicate the platform in the future.
> >>
> >> Interesting. How so? Do you have an example where inheriting from 
> >> EventTarget has become an issue or is going to be an issue? I 
> >> personally don't have a position on this, I'm just really interested 
> >> because I had this come up in other (proprietary) contexts.
> >
> > Why is EventTarget special?
> >
> > If one day we decide that many objects should all implement something 
> > else, e.g. a Clonable interface or something, what do we do?
> 
> Then we'll add Clonable as a mixin at that time. Similar to what we'd do 
> if we have some interface that we only want to apply to some 
> HTMLElements (such as all form controls, or all "sectioning" elements).
> 
> Adding EventTarget as a base interface is only a bad idea if there 
> appears in the future an interface which is more widely inherited than 
> EventTarget and more widely used than EventTarget. This seems highly 
> unlikely to me given how widely used and inherited EventTarget is.
> 
> EventTarget is no different from Node. Node supplies the ability to take 
> part in the document tree, EventTarget supplies the ability to receive 
> events.

So basically the answer to "Why is it special" is "because it is the first 
interface to have such wide applicability".

I don't know if that's convincing. But I can probably live with it, 
especially since I don't have a good alternative.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 14 July 2011 00:55:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:46 GMT