Notification proxies (Was: possible excessive proxy invariants for Object.keys/etc??)

David Bruant bruant.d at gmail.com
Mon Nov 26 11:28:02 PST 2012


Le 26/11/2012 19:58, Allen Wirfs-Brock a écrit :
>
> On Nov 26, 2012, at 12:36 AM, David Bruant wrote:
>
>> Le 25/11/2012 15:32, Axel Rauschmayer a écrit :
>>> If indeed both kinds of proxy are useful and direct proxies are more 
>>> powerful, then why not only have a foundational direct proxy API and 
>>> implement a tool type NotificationProxy that is based on that API.
>> An interesting question I still haven't found a satisfying answer to 
>> is: is the additional power of current proxies useful? and worth the 
>> cost? Because the current freedom of proxies is the root cause of 
>> invariant checks that even good proxy citizens have to pay.
>
> One of the motivating use cases for Proxies is self-hosting exotic 
> built-ins and host objects such as current Web API objects.  If the 
> standard built-in Proxy abstraction isn't expressive enough for that 
> job (and also efficient enough) then we haven't achieve the goal of 
> supporting that use case.
I agree, but I haven't read evidence on the thread that notification 
proxies would have insufficient power to do so. In my other answer, I 
pointed to a couple of expressiveness (minor) losses, but nothing that 
would prevent self-hosting Web APIs. Do you have particular examples in 
mind?

David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20121126/d7b0a47f/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list