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

Re: Mutation Observers: a replacement for DOM Mutation Events

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 16:50:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAGX5AhJ9=hrmrv_psfMEm+T5OtByM7gj-zreYYMO-45w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Klein <adamk@chromium.org>
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org, Olli@pettay.fi, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>, rafaelw@chromium.org, rniwa@chromium.org, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, annevk@opera.com, arv@chromium.org
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Adam Klein <adamk@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Adam Klein <adamk@chromium.org> wrote:
>>> [Constructor(in MutationCallback callback)]
>>> interface MutationObserver {
>>>   void observe(in Node target, in MutationObserverOptions options);
>>>   void disconnect();
>>> };
>>
>> It would be nice to have both of these return the MutationObserver
>> rather than void, so you can chain calls.
>
> I don't think that makes sense for disconnect() (at least the version
> specced here), since it stops observation of all nodes so chaining
> wouldn't make sense.  But I definitely see that chaining observe could
> be convenient.

// Resetting the observation list
observer
  .disconnect()
  .observe(node1,{...})
  .observe(node2,{...});

~TJ
Received on Friday, 23 September 2011 23:51:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:47 GMT