info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Making WrapNative less needed?
31 views
Skip to first unread message
Doug Turner
Jun 5, 2012, 11:56:22 AM6/5/12
to bzba...@mozilla.com, bho...@mozilla.com, pet...@mozilla.com
Recently, I needed to change an IDL that was exposed to the web. It was using a fixed type nsIFoo. The spec changed and I needed to be able to return one of two different types: nsIFoo or nsIBar depending on how the API was used. So, I changed the interface parameter to an jsval. And now, I have to do alot of extra work which is unfortunate.
* I need to hold on to the window that was associated with the calls. In my case, we are jumping back and forth between threads (so that we can do IO or whatever). Since the DOM isn't thread safe, you need to do stupid comptr tricks using .swap(). You need to carefully ensure that every path leads to a release on the right thread.
* Another issue is that wrapping an object is an advanced and scary process. Questions like "is this window still okay to use?", "do I have the right context?", "Wtf is the difference between a js scope and a js context?".
Under the hood, when using a fixed type like nsIFoo we must be creating jsval's to pass into javascript. Is it possible to build some extra love in this code so that passing different types is easier and safer?
Doug
* I need to hold on to the window that was associated with the calls. In my case, we are jumping back and forth between threads (so that we can do IO or whatever). Since the DOM isn't thread safe, you need to do stupid comptr tricks using .swap(). You need to carefully ensure that every path leads to a release on the right thread.
* Another issue is that wrapping an object is an advanced and scary process. Questions like "is this window still okay to use?", "do I have the right context?", "Wtf is the difference between a js scope and a js context?".
Under the hood, when using a fixed type like nsIFoo we must be creating jsval's to pass into javascript. Is it possible to build some extra love in this code so that passing different types is easier and safer?
Doug
Ms2ger
Jun 5, 2012, 12:06:05 PM6/5/12
to
On 06/05/2012 05:56 PM, Doug Turner wrote:
> Recently, I needed to change an IDL that was exposed to the web. It
> was using a fixed type nsIFoo. The spec changed and I needed to be
> able to return one of two different types: nsIFoo or nsIBar depending
> on how the API was used. So, I changed the interface parameter to an
> jsval.
Let me stop you right here. Why not change it to nsISupports?
> Recently, I needed to change an IDL that was exposed to the web. It
> was using a fixed type nsIFoo. The spec changed and I needed to be
> able to return one of two different types: nsIFoo or nsIBar depending
> on how the API was used. So, I changed the interface parameter to an
> jsval.
(Note that the new DOM bindings will support WebIDL unions, which are
exactly what you want here.)
Ms2ger
Kyle Huey
Jun 5, 2012, 12:17:27 PM6/5/12
to Ms2ger, dev-pl...@lists.mozilla.org
On Jun 5, 2012 9:10 AM, "Ms2ger" <ms2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 06/05/2012 05:56 PM, Doug Turner wrote:
>>
>> Recently, I needed to change an IDL that was exposed to the web. It
>> was using a fixed type nsIFoo. The spec changed and I needed to be
>> able to return one of two different types: nsIFoo or nsIBar depending
>> on how the API was used. So, I changed the interface parameter to an
>> jsval.
>
>
> Let me stop you right here. Why not change it to nsISupports?
Yes. That is the correct way to do this today. XPConnect will handle the
>
> On 06/05/2012 05:56 PM, Doug Turner wrote:
>>
>> Recently, I needed to change an IDL that was exposed to the web. It
>> was using a fixed type nsIFoo. The spec changed and I needed to be
>> able to return one of two different types: nsIFoo or nsIBar depending
>> on how the API was used. So, I changed the interface parameter to an
>> jsval.
>
>
> Let me stop you right here. Why not change it to nsISupports?
wrapping for you.
- Kyle
> (Note that the new DOM bindings will support WebIDL unions, which are
exactly what you want here.)
>
> Ms2ger
>
> dev-platform mailing list
> dev-pl...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Doug Turner
Jun 5, 2012, 12:45:48 PM6/5/12
to mozilla.de...@googlegroups.com, Ms2ger, dev-pl...@lists.mozilla.org
> Yes. That is the correct way to do this today. XPConnect will handle the
> wrapping for you.
Doug Turner
Jun 5, 2012, 12:45:48 PM6/5/12
to Ms2ger, dev-pl...@lists.mozilla.org
> Yes. That is the correct way to do this today. XPConnect will handle the
> wrapping for you.
0 new messages