- From: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 01:58:55 +0000
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <B4AE8F4E86E26C47AC407D49872F6F9F7EF2EA18@BY2PRD0510MB354.namprd05.prod.outlook.>
That sounds like a bizarre API to me. Access or properties should, as much as possible, behave just like normal data properties. ________________________________ From: Boris Zbarsky<mailto:bzbarsky@MIT.EDU> Sent: ý4/ý17/ý2013 21:39 To: public-script-coord@w3.org<mailto:public-script-coord@w3.org> Subject: Allowing IDL attributes to have different types for the getter and setter This has come up a few times now. Right now in WebIDL an attribute has a single type associated with it: the setter coerces the given value to that type if it can, and the getter returns that type. It's not a priori obvious that this is a great fit for all APIs, especially because of the restrictions in WebIDL on attribute types not being sequences or dictionaries ... which are there just because _returning_ those from an attribute would not be good. So a question in terms of API design: from the point of view of JS API consumers, does it make sense to have an attribute whose setter, say, takes an array of File or Blob objects, or a single File or Blob object, but whose getter always returns some object (always the same one) that represents the current set of File/Blob objects we've got? That sort of thing is not possible to declare in WebIDL right now. Should it be? There's relevant discussion in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=757664 and https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20407 for those who are interested. -Boris
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2013 01:59:48 UTC