W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Summary of stats discussion in Boston

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 11:51:32 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXAQ_c9r-TUpYC28V=3njB-5Zaeekgy85sPFxf2S_fwfA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
Cc: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 13 February 2013 23:00, Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com> wrote:
> On 2013-02-13 23:31, Martin Thomson wrote:
>> interface RTCStatsReport {
>>    getter RTCStatsObject (DOMString identifier);
>> };
> I asked this question on the public-script-coord list yesterday [1] and it
> seems like both approaches are fine.
>
> If there was a "(hash)map" counterpart to sequence<T> in WebIDL (something
> like map<KeyT, ValueT>) I think that would be the thing to use. The result
> represented in JavaScript would just be an object in that case. The thing
> that I don't like with (1) is that it introduces a new type that doesn't
> really add much. The only thing that differentiates it from any other
> map-like object, someone else might want to specify, is that it may only
> contain stats objects. I know that at least WebKit is moving away from
> special array-like objects to more reusable constructs. I'm not sure it
> would be right to go to start introducing special map-like objects.
>
> What do you browser implementers think about this?

Let's be clear, we've already agreed what it looks like in JavaScript
in a browser.  That's the only thing that really matters.  When it
comes to specification, pick whatever is clearest and easiest to
understand.

I asked Travis about this and here was his guidance:
> Browser implementers have this sort of functionality available on a variety of existing DOM objects, such as the "window" object, the "dataset" object, the "localStorage" object, etc. In all of these case, the objects are true interfaces [...]
>
> Whether you want this to be a dictionary or an interface depends on:
> 1) if you want the retrieval action to be a function or a property getter (property getter must be an interface)
> 2) if you expect multiple calls to the object to get the same instance each time (same instance must be an interface)

Based on this, I would prefer to specify as dictionary unless there
was a reason to upgrade to interface.

Downgrade to prose doesn't seem necessary.  It makes the basic
behaviour harder to discover when reading the spec.
Received on Friday, 15 February 2013 19:52:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:32 UTC