- From: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
- Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 15:59:23 -0700
- To: "Allen, Michael B (RSCH)" <Michael_B_Allen@ml.com>
- Cc: www-dom@w3.org
> > That shows that several folk raised the issue of that > > change introducing an asymmetry with respect to > > addEventListener(), which should have been dealt > > with at the same time. > > > > I think the corresponding change on the addEventListener > > side is a guarantee that a listener added to the current > > node _will_ be invoked as appropriate. > > > So , you mean that adding an event listener to a list currently being processed > should be invoked? If so, I don't see why this is "appropriate". Keeping an API model self-consistent is _always_ appropriate. > This is not about > symmetry, it's about potentially provoking code that may not longer be valid > due to dangling pointers, inconsistent state, etc. So you deny that the resolution of that issue created an inconsistency in the API model? > I think when an event is > dispatched, it should try to appear as an atomic operation, meaning a copy of > the listener list is used. Atomic != "use a copy". The change I identified is as atomic as the current text, but it's got the same model for the add and remove tasks. - Dave
Received on Monday, 20 August 2001 19:00:32 UTC