On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 7:09 PM, Bobby Holley <bobbyhol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just looked at the first 10 methods/attributes on that interface. None > of them are remotely performance-sensitive, and several are test-only. If > we see certain methods on it show up in profiles, we should move those > methods to WebIDL, rather than converting things wholesale per-interface. > > Are you suggesting that we build two IDLs per interface - one for perfomance-bound methods and the other for "non-performance-critical" ones? I'm just a used of XPIDL/WebIDL but I noticed that almost every interface I build or use has a mixture of those two types. >From that perspective, ability to write a single IDL file and mark which functions should be perf-critical (or the opposite) would be significantly better UX and more fine-tunable over time. But if your recommendation is to go for two, I would really appreciate a tutorial explaining how to design a C++ and JS API with those two IDLs separating perf-critical methods from others. zb. p.s. I understand your concern about sinking time into developing a WebIDL for XPIDL replacement. At the same time, my understanding is that no matter how much time something took in the past, we (in general) design our architecture for a much longer future. So if we can introduce something soon that will allow all new APIs to benefit from it, the argument of how many APIs we already have that use the old model is diminishing. _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
