W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: [UndoManager] Re-introduce DOMTransaction interface?

From: Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 22:37:21 +0300
Message-ID: <4FF5ECF1.2050605@helsinki.fi>
To: Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@webkit.org>
CC: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan@mozilla.com>, Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, Sukolsak Sakshuwong <sukolsak@gmail.com>, Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>
On 07/05/2012 10:05 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> Also, I think consistency matters a lot here. I'm not aware of any other Web-facing API that takes a pure object with callback functions.
Except of course event listeners. Well, addEventListener can take an object with _a_ callback function.

> I don't think it's reasonable to agree on an unimplementable design.
How is the current UndoManager unimplementable? It is just a bit hard in one implementation.
(I must say I'm _very_ surprised to learn that JS callback objects can be so hard to implement in WebKit.)

> In theory, mutation events can be implemented correctly but we couldn't, so we're
> moving on and getting rid of it.
Mutation Events is a bad API, and "implemented correctly" is not clear since there isn't a proper
spec for Mutation Events. Bad APIs shouldn't be implemented. UndoManager is a different beast. I don't see anything bad how it
currently handles callbacks. (But I also don't object to change it to use events if a good API is designed.)



-Olli
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2012 19:38:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:53 GMT