- From: Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 06:06:19 +0000
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
From: Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:mjs@apple.com]
> Does that sound right to you?
>
> If so, it is not much more appealing than "prototype swizzling" to us, since our biggest concern is allowing natural use of ES6 classes.
Got it, thanks. So it really does sound like it comes down to
class XFoo extends HTMLElement {
constructor() {
super();
// init code here
}
}
vs.
class XFoo extends HTMLElement {
[Element.created]() {
// init code here
}
}
which I guess we covered in the past at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2015JanMar/0283.html as being a general instance of the inversion of control design pattern, which I still don't really understand Apple's objection to. I suppose we can leave that for tomorrow.
Received on Tuesday, 21 July 2015 06:06:48 UTC