- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 00:26:41 +0100
- To: public-webrtc@w3.org
On 12/11/2012 11:01 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > On 11 December 2012 13:38, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote: >> On 12/11/2012 07:34 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: >>> On 11 December 2012 07:48, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote: >>>> that's impossible to implement due to some WebKit limitations >>> Would it make a difference if you made the substitution: >>> s/dictionary/[NoInterfaceObject] interface/g ? >> Not much of a difference; if I can tell the difference aright, I also have >> to do s/^/attribute/, or s/$/()/ (making all the members either attributes >> or functions). > I think that perhaps I wasn't clear enough - if webkit is unable to > produce dictionaries (I'm surprised by this, btw), then is it equally > unable to produce interfaces? Each new interface class requires the addition of approx. 3 files to Webkit (IDL, .h and .cc) (at minimum), and causes the generation of half a dozen more, resulting in a significant number of added code bytes. If the type should be carried all the way through WebKit to the underlying browser, it usually takes about 6 more files to accomplish that. It's an uncomfortable meeting place between a strongly typed language and a proto-typed one. > > The rest of us are not similarly afflicted by this limitation. I > would expect the specification to use dictionaries throughout. > Good for you. WebKit's open source, so you're free to contribute a solution.
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2012 23:27:13 UTC