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.

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

Reply via email to