W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: [WebIDL] remove modules

From: Bryan Sullivan <blsaws@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 06:59:54 -0700
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, <public-script-coord@w3.org>
CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Message-ID: <CA692E6A.12F2F%blsaws@gmail.com>
If modules are removed from WebIDL, how will different specifications ensure
that there are no namespace issues (i.e. conflicts between the names of
interfaces)? Sorry if I am misunderstanding the intent of the module
feature, but that is one aspect of how it was used in BONDI (which still
does exist it the market, BTW, in products but not as an actively developed
specification) and WAC.

I am very interested in the stability of this spec, for WAC and also because
I am leading work to begin using Web IDL in the Open Mobile Alliance, in
which we are creating Javascript APIs for exposure of OMA enabler services.
We will have a variety of APIs being defined, and need to ensure that the
different specifications do not conflict in the naming of interfaces.

Without the module feature, how do we replace the capability for this

Bryan Sullivan | AT&T

On 7/14/11 4:11 AM, "Robin Berjon" <robin@berjon.com> wrote:

> On Jul 14, 2011, at 09:11 , Cameron McCormack wrote:
>> Anne van Kesteren:
>>> Having everything in the same module seems fine for the web platform.
>> FWIW, I agree, itıs a complication I have come around to thinking we can
>> do without.
> I heartily agree. Some older specs might use them but I don't think that it
> matters all that much. If it does, we can issue errata.
>> One, BONDI folks were using IDL modules, IIRC.  Although I think their
>> spec stabilised well before now, so presumably theyıre dependent on an
>> earlier WD of Web IDL, and thus itıs probably not a big deal to drop the
>> feature, aside from the fact that we should focus on the Web and not
>> other concerns.
> BONDI doesn't exist anymore, so it's hardly a concern. WAC still uses modules
> but that probably was not a particularly good idea, and I'm pretty sure that
> they could drop that.
>> Two, certain Web platform interfaces have been in particular packages
>> in the Java binding, e.g. DOM Core interface have been in org.w3c.dom,
>> Events in org.w3c.dom.Events, and so on.  I donıt think this arrangement
>> has any particular benefits.  If Java implementations of Web platform
>> APIs need to keep interfaces from these specs in particular Java
>> packages, this could be done out-of-band from the IDL.
> Note that traditionally this has not been fully done using modules, but
> instead with a pragma. Which is to say, the DOM doesn't have:
> module org {
>     module w3c {
>         module dom {
>             // ...
>         };
>     };
> };
> but instead:
> #pragma prefix "w3c.org"
> module dom {
>     // ...
> };
> I don't believe that the Web IDL grammar allows for pragmata, but I'm guessing
> that it shouldn't be a big deal to find another such mechanism.
Received on Thursday, 11 August 2011 14:00:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:04 UTC