Re: Figuring out easier readonly interfaces

On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 2:16 AM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com> wrote:
>
>> You lose the inability to mutate. If this inability to mutate was not
>> part of the intended contract of the superclass, it should not use the term
>> "read only".
>>
>
> "DOMRectReadOnly" means that this interface provides only read access to
> the object. It says nothing about whether there are ways to mutate the
> object, whether through other interfaces on the same object or via related
> DOM objects (e.g. when a DOMRectReadOnly is returned by the "bounds"
> attribute of a mutable DOMQuad). This name may be confusing,
>

The notion that the "Only" in the name refers only to the interface and not
the object is confusing and bizarre. None of "DOM", "Rect", or "Read" refer
to the interface, they all refer to the object.




> but it will be seldom used by Web authors so I don't think it matters much
> as long as spec authors and browser implementers understand.
>

It will be used by those seeking to express a limitation of access. For
code that looks like it is preventing access other than read to in fact not
be preventing such access is more than confusing. It is dangerous.


>
> This thread petered out, but we need to resolve the issue. No-one has
> proposed any better naming convention AFAIK. I think we should go with
> DOMRectReadOnly until someone puts forward a name they think is better.
>

DOMRectReader

Instances of this type can read DOMRects. The interface doesn't state what
else they can or cannot do.



>
> Rob
> --
> Jtehsauts  tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy  Mdaon  yhoaus  eanuttehrotraiitny  eovni
> le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o  Whhei csha iids  teoa
> stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d  'mYaonu,r  "sGients  uapr,e  tfaokreg iyvoeunr,
> 'm aotr  atnod  sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t"  uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n?  gBoutt  uIp
> waanndt  wyeonut  thoo mken.o w  *
> *
>



-- 
    Cheers,
    --MarkM