- From: Dominic Cooney <dominicc@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 11:36:25 -0800
- To: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
- Cc: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAHnmYQ8EvaC2_+NgSedrQCgKtd=Q4mJyW3dKJ14yBNZYOp_c-g@mail.gmail.com>
OK. Seems like a wart, but it is simple. Dominic On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote: > That's exactly the point. Every API uses handleEvent even though they're > not actually handling events (e.g. the IndexedDB callbacks use > handleEvent). We should keep the platform simple for this weird edge case > and use handleEvent everywhere. The only thing that changes is what > arguments the callback takes. Each spec will still need to describe that. > > > On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Dominic Cooney <dominicc@google.com>wrote: > >> I like this idea. [Callback(Event)] EventListener? seems more flexible >> than Callback(Event) in that it can use a name other than handleEvent when >> dealing with an object. >> >> Web Audio, for example, has a callback for processing audio buffers. >> handleEvent is a weird name for this since it doesn’t handle events. >> >> What about (future) callbacks that have return types or raise exceptions? >> >> Dominic >> >> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Travis Leithead < >> travis.leithead@microsoft.com> wrote: >> >>> FWIW, I like the idea. The current indirection through an interface >>> annotated with [Callback] has historically been hard for newbies to WebIDL >>> to figure out. Anne's concept helps reduce the indirection. **** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> Another syntax could be:**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> addEventListener(DOMString type, [Callback(Event)] EventListener? >>> listener, optional boolean capture)**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> Which re-uses the "constructor" parameter syntax (in an extended >>> attribute) that we already have in WebIDL.**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> *From:* ojan@google.com [mailto:ojan@google.com] *On Behalf Of *Ojan >>> Vafai >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 08, 2011 9:05 AM >>> *To:* Anne van Kesteren >>> *Cc:* public-script-coord@w3.org >>> *Subject:* Re: [WebIDL] Simplify callbacks**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> I support this. While it's not the API I'd design from scratch, I think >>> it's what we're stuck with and the simplicity provided by doing this >>> throughout the platform is worth it.**** >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 6:47 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> >>> wrote:**** >>> >>> It seems that all callbacks use handleEvent() and we cannot change that >>> at this point I think. We should simplify callback syntax to a) make IDL >>> easier to read and b) ensure consistency throughout the platform. >>> >>> addEventListener(DOMString type, Callback(Event)? listener, optional >>> boolean capture) >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Anne van Kesteren >>> http://annevankesteren.nl/**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2011 19:36:53 UTC