- From: Brian Di Palma <offler@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 09:20:56 +0000
- To: Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com>
- Cc: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>, "public-webapps@w3.org WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 3:24 AM, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2013, at 12:45 AM, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 12, 2013, at 8:12 AM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> 1) It is not friendly to ES6 classes. In fact, you can't use class syntax
> and this syntax together.
>
>
> Okay, let the author define the constructor.
>
> 3) The approach pollutes global name space with constructors. This had been
> voiced many times as unacceptable by developers.
>
>
> We can solve this problem by using JavaScript "object path" as opposed to a
> variable name.
>
> So instead of:
> <template register="my-button" interface="MyButton">
> </template>
>
> We allow:
> <script>
> var my = {views:{MyButton: ~}};
> </script>
> <template register="my-button" interface="my.views.MyButton">
> </template>
>
> While this requires some variable to be exposed on the global scope,
> libraries and frameworks do this already,
Hopefully though they won't do that any longer in the ES6 module world.
They had to be exposed on the global scope in some way otherwise they
couldn't be used, in future that will no longer be the case.
> and authors could use
> document.register to avoid that altogether if they really wanted.
>
> - R. Niwa
>
Received on Friday, 6 December 2013 09:21:23 UTC