Re: [websockets] Getting WebSockets API to Last Call

On 7/11/11 8:36 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>> On 7/11/11 8:23 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Ian Hickson<ian@hixie.ch>   wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the other hand, we should [not] do things now that are likely to
>>>>>> create a more complicated or inconsistent platform in the future.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree, indeed that's my main reason for not wanting to make objects
>>>>> inherit from EventTarget. :-)
>>>>
>>>> I think adding EventTarget to the chain is a simplification as it makes
>>>> that interface more consistent with the majority of other ones.
>>>
>>> I mean in general, on any interface.
>>>
>>> IMHO nothing should inherit from EventTarget. That some interfaces do in
>>> the specs today is a relatively new development and IMHO one that will
>>> complicate the platform in the future.
>>
>> Interesting. How so? Do you have an example where inheriting from
>> EventTarget has become an issue or is going to be an issue? I personally
>> don't have a position on this, I'm just really interested because I had
>> this come up in other (proprietary) contexts.
>
> Why is EventTarget special?

I don't know about special, but some things do lend themselves to having 
events fired at them (given a good use case, where events are coming 
from external sources).

> If one day we decide that many objects should all implement something
> else, e.g. a Clonable interface or something, what do we do?

I agree with what you are saying in general (I have no opinion wrt 
WebSockets). If there is no valid case right here, right now, then don't 
try to predict the future.

Thanks for taking the time to clarify that for me :)

Received on Monday, 11 July 2011 18:43:19 UTC