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
