- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 00:19:40 +0100
- To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, public-script-coord@w3.org
On Monday, 26 March 2012 at 03:44, Cameron McCormack wrote: > Marcos Caceres: > > Yeah, I get that too. I guess that is the trade off between the > > flexibility and security the Web platform provides and my ideal of > > all objects created equal. I guess an environment like Node.js would > > be more appropriate for this kind of thing (as it doesn't provide any > > platform DOM objects, hence there all object would be created equal… > > unless implemented in C++ and then exposed as platform objects:)). > > > > Just to be clear, platform objects need not be implemented in C++. They > can be implemented in JS too, as long as all the platform objects > provided by the system "know" about each other (i.e. can access that > shared state). So if the browser, as the implementation of the DOM > described with Web IDL, exposes some objects implemented in pure JS then > that's fine. That's pretty much the essence of the notion of platform > objects here: they need to be part of the same "implementation". Understood. > > Jonas at one pointed suggested renaming interfaces to classes, since > that is probably a more accurate description of what they are, but I > didn't end up doing that (mostly just because it's always been written > as "interface" in IDL). Yeah, these WebIDL things are certainly something in between the two… "Interclass" :P Anyway, thanks for the explanations. It's been really helpful. -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 23:20:13 UTC