I think it's quite likely that all the constructors are wrong. If you're in doubt, you can test Firefox and IE to see how they behave.
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Drew Wilson<[email protected]> wrote: > So it seems like we should never reference lexicalGlobalObject in our > constructor/prototype creation code at all. This is likely to be correct. You want these to behave as if they were native JavaScript constructors defined by the window which they are originally a member. (This is different than primitives, which get boxed according to the lexicalGlobalObject.) > if I invoke "new > otherWindow.MessageChannel()", I should get a MessageChannel object whose > prototype chain == otherWindow.MessageChannel.prototype. Yes. Also, otherWindow.MessageChannel.prototype should eventually lead to otherWindow.Object.prototype. > So the constructor > should look like this instead: > JSMessageChannelConstructor::JSMessageChannelConstructor(ExecState* exec, > JSDOMGlobalObject* globalObject) > : > DOMObject(JSMessageChannelConstructor::createStructure(globalObject->objectPrototype())) > , m_globalObject(globalObject) > { > putDirect(exec->propertyNames().prototype, > JSMessageChannelPrototype::self(exec, globalObject), None); > } I'd have to look at the code a bit more to know whether this is correct. Where does |globalObject| come from? For an added bonus, you should test what happens if you transplant the constructor from one window to another. The constructor should keep its original prototype chain. Adam _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
