W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: Better event listeners

From: Rick Waldron <waldron.rick@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:15:05 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHfnhfp289JDEmC=ntRJiXShYfK-Vf7BZ-sad0DtzPnKmwWURA@mail.gmail.com>
To: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, DOM WG <www-dom@w3.org>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
I wonder if this is the moment where redemption can happen... Instead of
trying to invent some kind of new approach, why not standardize on the
massive, 16 lane, mega-highway cow-path just waiting to be paved:

on => addEventListener
off => removeEventListener
emit => dispatchEvent


I'd suggest Node's EventEmitter (and EventEmitter2) as a reasonable
starting point for an ideal, "subclassable" EventTarget-like system.


Rick


On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:32 PM, François REMY <
francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote:

> ----------------------------------------
> > Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 18:00:59 +0100
> > From: annevk@annevk.nl
> > To: francois.remy.dev@outlook.com
> > CC: www-dom@w3.org; es-discuss@mozilla.org
> > Subject: Re: Better event listeners
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 5:42 PM, François REMY
> > <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote:
> > > However, I've a few issues with your latest proposal:
> >
> > There's no proposal yet, we're exploring options.
> >
> > Not quite convinced about yours though as I'm pretty sure we want to
> > continue minting lowercase event names and overall it seems way
> > complex.
>
> No problem with that, we're here to discuss. As you note, this is still
> early exploration ;-) My concerns continue to hold, however.
>
> If we can a solution that works well with autocompletio, where you can
> test the existence of an event before registering to it (in a way that
> enables polyfills) and that doesn't remove abilities from the current
> syntax, I'll be all right. If we don't match those criteria, however, I'm
> not sure this approach is worth pursuing.
>
> To respond to Benoit's answer, I do think 'onclick' was a good approach
> that just missed the '+=' and '-=' operators of C#. Maybe adding support
> for them would be an alternative approach? Don't know how practical it's
> from an ECMAScript point of view, however. Proxying 'null' to support just
> '+' and '-' operators on it would be awsomely insane ^_^
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
Received on Monday, 7 January 2013 19:15:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 January 2013 19:15:54 GMT