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

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

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 23:33:07 +0100
To: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
Cc: "Jinho Bang" <jinho.bang@samsung.com>, "Philip Rogers" <pdr@chromium.org>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>, "Ian Kilpatrick" <ikilpatrick@google.com>
Message-ID: <op.x8bh9hlmidj3kv@simons-mbp>
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 11:48:02 +0100, Robert O'Callahan  
<robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote:
>
>> 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?
>>
>
> If it's not live, would you have an attribute that returns a new object
> every time, or a method that returns a new object every time, or an
> attribute (or method) that returns a new object every time the DOMQuad
> changes, or what?

I don't know. Maybe we could remove it and add a .fromQuad() static method  
on DOMRect/DOMRectReadOnly, that gives the bounding rectangle (new object  
every time)?

-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2015 22:33:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 18 November 2015 22:33:41 UTC