- From: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:57:54 -0800
- To: Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@google.com>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Blake Kaplan <mrbkap@mozilla.com>, Jonas Sicking <sicking@mozilla.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
That _is_ pretty nice, but we can add this as a second argument to the constructor, as well: root = new ShadowRoot(element, { applyAuthorSheets: false, resetStyleInheritance: true }); At this point, the stakes are primarily in aesthetics... Which makes the whole question so much more difficult to address objectively. :DG< On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@google.com> wrote: > The real sugar I think is in the dictionary version of addShadowRoot: > > root = element.addShadowRoot({ > applyAuthorSheets: false, > resetStyleInheritance: true > }) > > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com> wrote: >> >> Sure. Here's a simple example without getting into traversable shadow >> trees (those are still being discussed in a different thread): >> >> A1) Using constructable ShadowRoot: >> >> var element = document.querySelector('div#foo'); >> // let's add a shadow root to element >> var shadowRoot = new ShadowRoot(element); >> // do work with it.. >> shadowRoot.applyAuthorSheets = false; >> shadowRoot.appendChild(myDocumentFragment); >> >> A2) Using addShadowRoot: >> >> var element = document.querySelector('div#foo'); >> // let's add a shadow root to element >> var shadowRoot = element.addShadowRoot(); >> // do work with it.. >> shadowRoot.applyAuthorSheets = false; >> shadowRoot.appendChild(myDocumentFragment); >> >> Now with traversable shadow trees: >> >> B1) Using constructable ShadowRoot: >> >> var element = document.querySelector('div#foo'); >> alert(element.shadowRoot); // null >> var root = new ShadowRoot(element); >> alert(root === element.shadowRoot); // true >> var root2 = new ShadowRoot(element); >> alert(root === element.shadowRoot); // false >> alert(root2 === element.shadowRoot); // true >> >> B2) Using addShadowRoot: >> >> var element = document.querySelector('div#foo'); >> alert(element.shadowRoot); // null >> var root = element.addShadowRoot(); >> alert(root === element.shadowRoot); // true >> var root2 = element.addShadowRoot(); >> alert(root === element.shadowRoot); // false >> alert(root2 === element.shadowRoot); // true >> >> :DG< >> >> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: >> > >> > Could you please provide equivalent code examples using both versions? >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Maciej >> > >> > On Nov 7, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> Folks, >> >> >> >> Throughout the year-long (whoa!) history of the Shadow DOM spec, >> >> various people commented on how odd the constructable ShadowRoot >> >> pattern was: >> >> >> >> var root = new ShadowRoot(host); // both creates an instance *and* >> >> makes an association between this instance and host. >> >> >> >> People (I cc'd most of them) noted various quirks, from the >> >> side-effectey constructor to relatively uncommon style of the API. >> >> >> >> I once was of the strong opinion that having a nice, constructable >> >> object has better ergonomics and would overcome the mentioned code >> >> smells. >> >> >> >> But... As we're discussing traversable shadows and the possibility of >> >> having Element.shadowRoot, the idea of changing to a factory pattern >> >> now looks more appealing: >> >> >> >> var element = document.querySelector('div#foo'); >> >> alert(element.shadowRoot); // null >> >> var root = element.addShadowRoot({ resetStyleInheritance: true }); >> >> alert(root === element.shadowRoot); // true >> >> var root2 = element.addShadowRoot(); >> >> alert(root === element.shadowRoot); // false >> >> alert(root2 === element.shadowRoot); // true >> >> >> >> You gotta admit this looks very consistent and natural relative to how >> >> DOM APIs work today. >> >> >> >> We could still keep constructable object syntax as alternative method >> >> or ditch it altogether and make calling constructor throw an >> >> exception. >> >> >> >> What do you think, folks? In the spirit of last night's events, let's >> >> vote: >> >> >> >> 1) element.addShadowRoot rocks! Let's make it the One True Way! >> >> 2) Keep ShadowRoot constructable! Factories stink! >> >> 3) Let's have both! >> >> 4) element.addShadowRoot, but ONLY if we have traversable shadow trees >> >> 5) Kodos. >> >> >> >> :DG< >> >> >> >> P.S. I would like to retain the atomic quality of the operation: >> >> instantiate+associate in one go. There's a whole forest of problems >> >> awaits those who contemplate detached shadow roots. >> >> >> > > >
Received on Thursday, 8 November 2012 17:58:15 UTC