W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > October to December 2015

[geometry] Remove liveness (was: Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Implement: Geometry Interfaces)

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 11:35:53 +0100
To: "Jinho Bang" <jinho.bang@samsung.com>, "Philip Rogers" <pdr@chromium.org>
Cc: public-fx@w3.org, "Ian Kilpatrick" <ikilpatrick@google.com>, "Robert O'Callahan" <rocallahan@mozilla.com>
Message-ID: <op.x78qd3a7idj3kv@simons-mbp>
Moving to public-fx (blink-dev in bcc).

On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 19:03:55 +0100, Philip Rogers <pdr@chromium.org> wrote:

> I thought the same thing when watching that talk :) V8 extras seems like  
> a
> great solution for making these objects performant and easily  
> implementable.
>
> I think this spec still needs a little work to not have 'live' objects
> though. The Houdini folks are working on layout APIs that just return
> simple POD objects and I think that would be more appropriate for these
> objects as well.

I thought this had been discussed in the past, but I can't find anything  
now. Only  
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-fx/2014JanMar/0012.html which  
isn't asking for non-liveness.

The only live object is DOMQuad#bounds, I believe.

https://drafts.fxtf.org/geometry/#associated-bounding-rectangle

What are the pros and cons for live vs non-live for this object?


> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 1:40 AM, Jinho Bang <jinho.bang@samsung.com>  
> wrote:
>
>> V8 Extras:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Jgk6ymWooNYStTP11F_z9ajk3ezLgQqrGkdQTxE4xT0/mobilepresent?slide=id.gc6fa3c898_0_0
>>
>>
>


-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Tuesday, 17 November 2015 10:36:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:49:54 UTC