Re: document.register and ES6

Now with IE support:

http://jsfiddle.net/aNHZH/5/


On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>>>> whopper developer 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>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>