brendan at mozilla.com
Mon Jan 18 08:42:38 PST 2010
On Jan 18, 2010, at 4:38 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
> Obviously, I will have many positive things to say about the Valija
> approach for accommodating legacy. In fact, it was invented in order
> to cope with the "highly popular Prototype library" you mention
> below. However, the picture is not as rosy as "a burden [only] on
> implementors". The semantics of computing between Valija contexts
> are complicated, in similar but different manner to how the
> semantics of JS across frames is complicated today. If there's
> interest, I can present Valija with slides 10-15 of <http://ses.json.org/millerses.pdf
Perhaps Valija is not the last word on this approach :-/. There's the
system Adam Barth is developing -- have you checked that out?
> * The highly popular Prototype library, and a lot of extant code,
> modifying primordials. If all such code must be rewritten to work in/
> with modules, then modules have a steep adoption hill to climb.
> I don't quite understand this. Prototype does not currently work
> with modules, so some rewrite is necessary in any case. As long as
> we're talking about future Prototype, my impression is that they
> wanted to migrate away from mutating primordials eventually anyway.
Tobie et al. may want to, but I know many *users* of Prototype who do
not. We're talking about a large number of actual uses, some of which
might want to migrate into a module, not necessarily be used cross-
module. The cost of doing so is low if primordials in that module can
be mutated. It goes way up if they can't.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss