Re: [webcomponents]: Changing API from constructable ShadowRoot to factory-like

I think a factory function is better here for the reasons Dimitri stated. But I also agree that an addFoo function returning a new object seems strange. I think that createShadowRoot may be better than either option.

 - Maciej

On Nov 8, 2012, at 11:42 AM, Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org> wrote:

> addShadowRoot seem wrong to me to. Usually add* methods takes an
> argument of something that is supposed to be added to the context
> object.
> 
> If we are going with a factory function I think that createShadowRoot
> is the right name even though create methods have a lot of bad history
> in the DOM APIs.
> 
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@google.com> wrote:
>> True, though that's actually one character longer, probably two with normal
>> formatting ;P
>> 
>> new ShadowRoot(element,{
>> element.addShadowRoot({
>> 
>> I'm more concerned about the constructor with irreversible side effects of
>> course.
>> 
>> - E
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> erik
>

Received on Friday, 9 November 2012 20:31:28 UTC