Notification proxies (Was: possible excessive proxy invariants for Object.keys/etc??)
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss