- From: Dave Herman <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 13:34:50 -0700
- To: whatwg/dom <dom@noreply.github.com>
- Cc:
- Message-ID: <whatwg/dom/issues/270/227261146@github.com>
It seems like there's general agreement that some kind of transactionality is desirable, but with a key unresolved question being whether we should strive to avoid exposing intermediate states. I find the idea of exposing those states pretty concerning, and I think it's worth trying to achieve an API that avoids it, which AIUI is what this proposal is aiming at. I also find the idea of transactional change records an appealing primitive for modeling the DOM -- it seems like a good "explain the platform" approach: an execution trace is a sequence of DOM changes. So where other APIs @esprehn mentions might use wrappers to talk about existing nodes, it makes sense for transactional change records to operate at a lower conceptual layer. Also, I'd be pretty worried about arguments saying that absent empirical data, we should have our primitives do more things and bet on our optimizations getting smarter. I think our default orientation should be the reverse: our primitives should be simpler and try to do less. --- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/270#issuecomment-227261146
Received on Monday, 20 June 2016 20:35:18 UTC