On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Jeff Muizelaar <jmuizel...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 7:21 AM, Ted Mielczarek <t...@mielczarek.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018, at 7:41 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: > >> (C) The API uses complex arguments like promises that XPIDL doesn't > handle > >> in a nice way. > > > > I think this is an understated point. WebIDL was designed explicitly to > allow expressing the semantics of JS APIs, where XPIDL is some arbitrary > set of things designed by folks at Netscape a long time ago. Almost any > non-trivial API will wind up being worse in XPIDL (and the C++ > implementation side is worse as well). > > > > I agree that an XPConnect-alike supporting WebIDL semantics would be a > lot of work, but I also think that asking developers to implement chrome > interfaces with XPIDL is pretty lousy. > > An alternative would be to evolve XPIDL to be more WebIDL like. I > suspect we could fix some of the ergonomic warts incrementally with > significantly less work than supporting the full WebIDL semantics in a > XPConnect style. > Absolutely. I filed bug 1444515 (alias xpidl-warts). Please document pain points in that bug and we can brainstorm tractable fixes. > > -Jeff > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
