- From: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 13:02:29 -0800
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > > On Dec 15, 2010, at 11:14 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > >> >> >>>> At least in Gecko's case, we still use XBL1 in this way, and those design >>>> goals would apply to XBL2 from our point of view. It sounds like you have >>>> entirely different design goals, right? >>> >>> Sounds like it. >> >> OK, so given contradictory design goals, where do we go from here? > > Are they really contradictory? It sounds like Tab doesn't care about the use case where you want hundreds or thousands of instances without undue memory use, since he's looking to replace technologies that already don't support this. But it doesn't seem like these use cases are fundamentally incompatible. > > Personally, I think it would be a huge win if XBL2-based components could be more scalable than ones written in pure JavaScript using vanilla DOM calls. That way, XBL2 could enable new kinds of applications and reduce memory use of existing applications, rather than just providing convenience and bridging, as Tab seems to envision. FWIW, I think Tab agrees with you here (right, Tab? :). If you want to introduce new capabilities, might as well make them lean and mean. :DG< > > Regards, > Maciej > >
Received on Thursday, 16 December 2010 21:03:00 UTC