- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 11:17:04 -0700
- To: Subbu Allamaraju <subbu.allamaraju@gmail.com>, Web APIs WG <public-webapi@w3.org>
You can define getters and setters in javascript that throw. Please refer to javascript tutorials for how to do this. Best Regards, Jonas Sicking Subbu Allamaraju wrote: > I have a question on the nature of implementations possible for XHR. In > particular, would the following be a valid scenario? > > A client API (e.g in JavaScript) provides a factory for creating XHR > instances. > > foo.bar.XMLhttpRequestFactory.newInstance(); > > which would return one of the following: > > - A natively implemented XHR object (e.g. one implemented by browser) > - An XHR implementation wrapping the native XHR object > > The factory would determine this based on some conditions (e.g. the > context in which the factory is being used). > > Such a factory/wrapped model would let us provide coordination between > different UI components rendered in a page without strongly coupling > those UI components. > > Here is an example - one of the UI components submits a request through > XHR, which in some cases, may cause changes to the other UI components > rendered on the same page. The UI component that initiated the request > isn't aware of other UI components on the page, and so cannot directly > update those components. > > In this case, a wrapped object would be able to update the changed UI > components without the knowledge of the source UI component. As far as > the source component is concerned, the wrapped object is no different > from the native XHR object. > > This style of wrapped objects makes sense for portlets, and such > component-style applications aggregated in portals, and we are > considering this approach in JSR286 EG and the WSRP TC. > > One issue that stands in the way of this approach is the MUST > requirement to throw INVALID_STATE_ERR when the response fields (status, > statusText, responseXML, and responseText) are not available. When > implemented in JavaScript, I'm not aware of any way to throw an > exception on field access, and so this makes the wrapped implementation > non-conformant. > > Any comments on whether this is considered as a valid approach? If so, > relaxation of this MUST statement would help make wrapped objects > conformant. > > Regards, > Subbu > > ------------------------------ > http://www.subbu.org
Received on Monday, 23 April 2007 18:19:51 UTC