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. -Ted _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
