direct_proxies "problem"

Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com
Wed Jan 9 14:57:44 PST 2013


do you have any example of what you are saying? all my examples fail and I
don't understand other use cases.

As you said, if a Proxy should be undetectable a broken Proxy that cannot
be used is a pointless object full of inconsistency in the environment,
IMHO.

Is this the decision then? Let the new Proxy accept any target even if the
target cannot be "proxied" ?


On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 2:24 PM, David Bruant <bruant.d at gmail.com> wrote:

> Le 09/01/2013 21:57, Andrea Giammarchi a écrit :
>
>  Last, but not least, even offline DOM proxies are pointless, here another
>> example without putting them in the DOM
>>
> What's an "offline DOM Proxy"?
>
>
>  var p = new Proxy(
>>    document.createElement("p"),
>>
>>    {}
>> );
>> try {
>>    p.appendChild(
>>
> That's what you call "without putting them in the DOM"? ;-)
> What are you going to do when your proxy node has a child? Probably put it
> on the DOM eventually, I guess, no?
>
>
>       document.createElement("span")
>>    );
>> } catch(o_O) {
>>    console.log(o_O.message);
>> }
>> try {
>>    p.appendChild(
>>      new Proxy(
>>        document.createElement("span")**,
>>
>>        {}
>>      )
>>    );
>> } catch(o_O) {
>>    console.log(o_O.message);
>> }
>> So, as it is right now, there is not a single reason to make them valid
>> as new Proxy target, IMHO
>>
> Membrane and avoiding the cost of the shadow target sounds like a good
> enough.
>
> David
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130109/52b6a3d1/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list