W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: document.register and ES6

From: Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 14:44:56 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHbmOLZC1fXYUKm=Webu-pW=vS0HddJD7eMbTfEVO9cMSBarnw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Buchner <daniel@mozilla.com>
Cc: Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org>, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
If that works, then what's the problem? It only need be done once per
component.

I'm still confused, because it seems to me that 'unbaked object allowance
route' == components only work in IE if specified using tortured syntax.

That's no bueno IMO.


On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Daniel Buchner <daniel@mozilla.com> wrote:

> Short of running Object.getOwnPropertyNames on the existing node > then
> iterating over each to grab the property descriptor with
> Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor to rebuild an unbaked object > and finally
> setting the properties with Object.setProperties, I am unaware of how to do
> so - is there an easier way? If so I would love to not do the above or go
> the unbaked object allowance wrapper route :)
>
> Daniel J. Buchner
> Product Manager, Developer Ecosystem
> Mozilla Corporation
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com> wrote:
>
>> Seems like you decided that descriptor syntax is *necessary* for IE
>> compatibility. I'm 80% sure it is not.
>>
>> S
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Daniel Buchner <daniel@mozilla.com>wrote:
>>
>>> I guess it isn't a show stopper for poly-*ish*-fills, I would just wrap
>>> the native document.register method where it is present > sniff the
>>> incoming prototype property value to detect whether it was baked > cache
>>> the unbaked prototype > then pass a baked one to the native method.
>>>
>>> Of course this means we'll (I'll) be evangelizing a polyfill with a
>>> slightly augmented wrapper for taking unbaked objects, but for IE
>>> compatibility devs will probably offer their first born, so I doubt they'll
>>> bat an eye at such a benign incongruity.
>>>
>>> Daniel J. Buchner
>>> Product Manager, Developer Ecosystem
>>> Mozilla Corporation
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Remember where we started: absurdly clean ES6 class syntax.
>>>>
>>>> Requiring class definition class using property descriptors is a
>>>> radical march in the other direction.
>>>>
>>>> I'm hardcore about syntactical tidiness. The reason I'm not freaking
>>>> out about defineProperties is IMO because I can avoid it when I don't need
>>>> it (which is about 99% of the time).
>>>>
>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Daniel Buchner <daniel@mozilla.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I just made sure it worked, and it does. As for developers freaking
>>>>> out, I really don't believe they would. If that was the case,
>>>>> Object.defineProperties should be causing a global pandemic of whopperdeveloper freakouts (
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhF6Kr4ITNQ).
>>>>>
>>>>> This would give us easy IE compat for the whole range of property
>>>>> types, and I'm willing to all but guarantee developers will have a bigger
>>>>> freakout about not having IE9 support than the prototype property of
>>>>> document.register taking both a baked and unbaked object.
>>>>>
>>>>> Daniel J. Buchner
>>>>> Product Manager, Developer Ecosystem
>>>>> Mozilla Corporation
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Daniel Buchner <daniel@mozilla.com>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you're directly setting the user-added methods on matched
>>>>>>> elements in browsers that don't support proto, but what about accessors?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe those can be forwarded too, I just didn't bother in my
>>>>>> fiddle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Equipped with the unbaked prototype descriptor, in your upgrade
>>>>>>> phase, you should be able to simply bake the node with:
>>>>>>> Object.defineProperties(element, unbakedPrototypeDescriptor) - right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, but I believe developers would freak out if we required them to
>>>>>> provide that type of descriptor (I would).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2013 22:45:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:57 GMT