Going to the title of this thread, it's my view that private symbols should just auto-forward to the ultimate target no matter what, and that this "trap opt-out" on a per property basis should be counted as a feature instead of a limitation. Making any class/construct automatically unproxyable upon its first use of a private symbol, as someone said earlier, fatally wounds the value of proxies. But the more complex solutions are hacky, as Brendan put it, at best and flimsy/fragile in all likelihood, The only other viable option is to remove private symbols entirely or to simply expose them to proxy traps, essentially making them slightly-less-visible-but-not-entirely-private symbols.
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.com> wrote: > Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: > >> This really makes me start to question even more the viability of Proxy >> based membranes (direct proxies, at least) as an isolation mechanism. >> Independent of private Symbols, it isn't clear that it is a practical >> approach. >> > > Firefox relies on proxies based on the original spec. They are "viable" -- > we don't have any soundness problems, and we bugfix validity problems until > zarro boogs. > > Of course, we have not yet implemented symbols, private or public. > > Seriously, why are you doubting proxies? Please give more of an analytical > argument. Yes, unknownPrivateSymbol as a "throw or do nothing" trap seems > hacky. We may find a better way. But that's not a problem with proxies or > membranes so much as private symbols in conjunction with the MOP and the > integrity properties we want to enforce. > > /be > > ______________________________**_________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/**listinfo/es-discuss<https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss> >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
