Module isolation

David-Sarah Hopwood david-sarah at jacaranda.org
Mon Jan 11 11:21:29 PST 2010


David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
> Brendan Eich wrote:
>> On Jan 10, 2010, at 9:30 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
>>> Brendan Eich wrote:
>>>> On Jan 10, 2010, at 1:14 AM, Kevin Curtis wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> From SecureEcmaScript proposal:
>>>>> 6. The top level binding of this in an evaled Program is not the
>>>>> global object, but rather a frozen root object containing just the
>>>>> globals defined in the ES5 spec.
>>>> For many current applications, the frozen |this| object is not necessary
>>>> or desirable in global code. The essential characteristic of modules,
>>>> isolation for each module's "inside" from unimported effects of other
>>>> modules, does not necessarily mean no mutation of primordial objects.
>>> On the contrary, it does necessarily mean that. If you can mutate
>>> primordial objects, then there is no isolation of any module. There
>>> may be a reduction in the possibilities for accidental interference
>>> between modules, but that should be distinguished from isolation.
>>
>> Who said primordial objects are shared between modules?
> 
> Having separate copies of primordial objects for each module is not
> sufficient to ensure isolation. If one module has access to some object
> obj of another, it can also get access to that object's prototype chain
> using Object.getPrototypeOf(obj), or obj.constructor.prototype.

Correction: obj.constructor[.prototype] gives access to the constructor
chain. But that doesn't really affect my argument, if constructors are
mutable.

-- 
David-Sarah Hopwood  ⚥  http://davidsarah.livejournal.com

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 292 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20100111/dcc1a461/attachment.bin>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list