Re: Isolated worlds (was Re: Module isolation)

2010-01-10 Thread Adam Barth
[Re-sending now that I've subscribed with this address] I haven't been following this module discussion very closely, but these recent comments sound related to something we've been playing around with in WebKit. We have a mechanism (called an "isolated world") that lets multiple JavaScript conte

Re: Module isolation

2010-01-10 Thread Brendan Eich
On Jan 10, 2010, at 9:38 PM, Brendan Eich wrote: That you conflate frozen primordials with isolation is exactly the kind of over-specification through shortest-path evolution of ES5 to which I object. It is not going to fly in TC39 among all the browser vendors. We need to hear from Apple,

Re: Module isolation

2010-01-10 Thread Brendan Eich
On Jan 10, 2010, at 9:30 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote: Brendan Eich wrote: On Jan 10, 2010, at 1:14 AM, Kevin Curtis wrote: From SecureEcmaScript proposal: 6. The top level binding of this in an evaled Program is not the global object, but rather a frozen root object containing just the glob

Module isolation

2010-01-10 Thread David-Sarah Hopwood
Brendan Eich wrote: > On Jan 10, 2010, at 1:14 AM, Kevin Curtis wrote: > >> From SecureEcmaScript proposal: >> 6. The top level binding of this in an evaled Program is not the >> global object, but rather a frozen root object containing just the >> globals defined in the ES5 spec. > > For many cu

Re: Proxies: Additional item for January Agenda

2010-01-10 Thread Brendan Eich
On Jan 10, 2010, at 1:14 AM, Kevin Curtis wrote: There could be some useful overlap with the http://code.google.com/p/es-lab/wiki/SecureEcmaScript proposal and modules. The restricted eval (esp #6) could be the core mechanism of a module system. Only if you insist on using eval to turn so

Re: An alternative quasi-literal strawman

2010-01-10 Thread Mike Samuel
I updated the alternative proposal. I simplified the implementation by using opaque nodes for substitutions which reduces the size of the normative parts substantially and requires that fewer moving parts function correctly in order for the security properties to be maintained. This simplificatio

Re: Proxies: Additional item for January Agenda

2010-01-10 Thread ihab . awad
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote: > Modules would be great! But I believe Ihab, due to travel conflicts, has > been preparing to present a module proposal for the March meeting, not the > January one. Ihab? That is correct -- thanks Mark for noting this. Fwiw, Kris Kowal and

Re: Proxies: Additional item for January Agenda

2010-01-10 Thread Kevin Curtis
There could be some useful overlap with the http://code.google.com/p/es-lab/wiki/SecureEcmaScript proposal and modules. The restricted eval (esp #6) could be the core mechanism of a module system. >From SecureEcmaScript proposal: 6. The top level binding of this in an evaled Program is not the gl