but then, as you write, if I decide to expose an object or I can reach an object and then use Object.observe there is no ownership problem since whoever let me reach that object didn't want to block me doing so ... also because the Object.freeze(exposedObject) is an easy solution where internally, that frozen object, could be attached through a Map or WeakMap to another one not exposed so ... again, this ownership "thingy" for objects anyone could reach does not look like a good reason at all to avoid implementation of Object.observe
The global context and all its namespaces are another example, as well as the whole DOM is since me, the one that would like to create an element and use similar Object.freeze(myOwnElement) operation, cannot prevent other people to add listeners or change styles ... right ? So as it is, and I am the one saying "that's correct", for listeners, where if you don't own the listener you cannot remove it, I can't see why Object.observe would have so many problems with the ownership ... anyone can observe unless the object is marked as frozen but none can know who else islistening ... and this is actually, in my opinion, good! Maybe, a good compromise would be to be able to prevent "propagation" of other listeners so that the first one that set a listener, let's call it the owner, can prevent other listeners from being called or flag that listener as "the only one allowed for that object" ? This could make Object.observe more reasonable without needing to freeze anything still being free to expose objects ... just saying, to me that would work in any case ( a secured observation ). Thoughts, welcome
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
