On 4/17/26 22:37, Dave Townsend wrote:
Why should we do it though?
In general the event dispatch may not be the best example, but any sort
of "derived" object should generally be created with the relevant global
of the parent object.
Anyways, I looked and there aren't many uses of non-Node ownerGlobal
usage, I think longer term we should try to unexpose that from JS.
But anyways, given the discussion here, for now I filed:
* Bug 2033242 to rename ownerDocGlobal to documentGlobal, and use it
in relevant places.
* Bug 2033243 to rename ownerGlobal to relevantGlobal (both in C++ and
JS).
* Bug 2033191 to remove some of the non-node ownerGlobal usage I've
found (but more to come).
Hopefully that improves a bit the situation? I expect most current usage
of ownerGlobal to go to documentGlobal, long term. We might want to even
lint for .relevantGlobal usage (requiring a comment for why is it the
right thing to do).
But anyways I don't want to snowball it, I think I'd like to get at
least bug 2033242 in this cycle since I'm pretty sure it will fix some
edge cases with child actors.
Thanks,
-- Emilio
>>
>> I do understand that for the front-end, having a convenient way
>> of getting to the global that the node is in (ownerDocGlobal,
>> currently)
>> is super handy and what 95+% of the code would want, tho...
>>
>> If the non-Node EventTarget.ownerGlobal usage for bindings
is minimal,
>> wdyt about renaming it from the bindings to something
different / more
>> obviously not-what-you-usually want (or removing it even,
perhaps)?
>>
>>
>> If keeping the existing behaviour of `ownerGlobal` isn't an
option then I think we should switch to better named alternatives,
perhaps
>> `currentGlobal` and `eventGlobal`.
I couldn't guess what eventGlobal might mean.
This is me not really understanding why we need to use the original
global for creating events.
>
> I think currentGlobal is a bit unclear on what it is. And the
HTML spec actually defines that term which would make it confusing
for platform
> engineers IMHO.
>
> ownerDocGlobal is pretty clear if it wasn't for ownerGlobal existing.
>
> WDYT of:
>
> * For now, I land the tweaks in [1].
> * I investigate removing ownerGlobal from JS. Basically, push
to try with .ownerGlobal crashing for stuff that isn't a node and
audit the results.
> * Based on that we can decide whether to remove stuff or rename
the two accessors.
>
I assume we do need to have ownerGlobal on EventTarget, possibly
renamed to relevantGlobal. But perhaps I'm wrong :)
> I'd like Olli's input on the names, as ideally we make C++ match
those names too. The HTML spec has "relevant global" for our current
ownerGlobal[2].
> For the ownerDocGlobal that'd be something like "node document's
relevant global" or so.
>
> Would something like relevantGlobal / documentGlobal work for you?
>
I do like relevantGlobal and documentGlobal.
Not sure they will help too much, since the setup just is confusing
when there are multiple globals around. We can't do much about that,
since that is
what the web relies on.
-Olli
> Thanks,
>
> -- Emilio
>
> [1]: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D294805 <https://
phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D294805>
> [2]: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#relevant <https://
html.spec.whatwg.org/#relevant>
>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --Emilio
>>
>> On 4/17/26 2:09 PM, Dave Townsend wrote:
>> > Hi Emilio. I'm concerned that this change in behaviour
will cause
>> subtle
>> > bugs in existing or future code we write. In my mind and
I'm sure
>> in the
>> > minds of many developers, `ownerGlobal` means the window the
>> element is
>> > in and that will be a hard perception to shift. Because
it will
>> now mean
>> > something different only in rare cases we are likely to
use the
>> wrong
>> > thing without noticing. Additionally the naming of
`ownerGlobal` and
>> > `ownerDocGlobal` makes it very unclear that they mean
different
>> things.
>> >
>> > Since `ownerGlobal` is not part of the web spec can we
keep the same
>> > behaviour for `ownerGlobal` and introduce a new property
for the
>> node's
>> > original window?
>> >
>> > On Thu, 16 Apr 2026 at 23:22, 'Emilio Cobos Álvarez' via
firefox-
>> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> <mailto:firefox-
<mailto:firefox->
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:firefox-
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> <firefox-
>> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> <mailto:firefox-
<mailto:firefox->
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:firefox-
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hey,
>> >
>> > Once I get bug 1470017 <https://bugzil.la/1470017
<https://bugzil.la/1470017> <https://
>> bugzil.la/1470017 <http://bugzil.la/1470017>>> to stick, the
>> > `EventTarget.ownerGlobal` property on nodes will
change behavior
>> > slightly.
>> >
>> > This will allow fixing long-standing web components
issues
>> > (prototypes getting lost on adopt) and some other subtler
>> webcompat
>> > issues, like bug 2022763 <https://bugzil.la/2022763
<https://bugzil.la/2022763> <https://
>> bugzil.la/2022763 <http://bugzil.la/2022763>>>.
>> >
>> > In most cases it should be fine to keep using it in the
>> front-end,
>> > but there are two subtle behavior changes that might need
>> code to be
>> > adjusted:
>> >
>> > * If you're dealing with nodes that might have been
adopted,
>> > `ownerGlobal` might point to the original window
of the node,
>> > not the one that's currently in.
>> > * .ownerGlobal might also now return non-null a bit
more often
>> > (after the docshell is gone).
>> >
>> > If you need the old behavior, you can use the new
>> > `Node.ownerDocGlobal` property. I don't expect much
fallout,
>> and I
>> > want to proactively change some more code to use
`ownerDocGlobal`
>> > (e.g. child actors almost always want to look at the
window
>> the node
>> > is in), but I thought it might be worth a PSA, reach
out if
>> you see
>> > issues that might be caused by it on the chrome.
>> >
>> > Let me know if there are any questions.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > -- Emilio
>> >
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed
to the
>> Google
>> > Groups "[email protected] <mailto:firefox-
[email protected]> <mailto:firefox- <mailto:firefox->
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> <mailto:firefox-
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:firefox-
<mailto:firefox->
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>>" group.
>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
emails from it,
>> > send an email to [email protected]
<mailto:firefox-dev%[email protected]>
>> <mailto:firefox-dev%[email protected]
<mailto:firefox-dev%[email protected]>>
>> > <mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:firefox-dev%[email protected]> <mailto:firefox-
<mailto:firefox->
>> dev%[email protected]
<mailto:dev%[email protected]>>>.
>> > To view this discussion visit https://
groups.google.com/a/ <https://groups.google.com/a/>
>> <https://groups.google.com/a/ <https://groups.google.com/a/>>
>> > mozilla.org/d/msgid/firefox-dev/CAFhp-qcR_%3Dc- <http://
mozilla.org/d/msgid/firefox-dev/CAFhp-qcR_%3Dc-> <http://
>> mozilla.org/d/msgid/firefox-dev/CAFhp-qcR_%3Dc- <http://
mozilla.org/d/msgid/firefox-dev/CAFhp-qcR_%3Dc->>
>> >
QMRqFPYVyK1v3p67ViNaeLRr1emN%3DaXJRs7jBg%40mail.gmail.com
<http://40mail.gmail.com>
>> <http://40mail.gmail.com <http://40mail.gmail.com>> <https://
>> > groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/d/msgid/firefox-dev/
CAFhp- <http://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/d/msgid/firefox-dev/
CAFhp->
>> qcR_%3Dc- <http://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/d/msgid/
firefox- <http://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/d/msgid/firefox->
>> dev/CAFhp-qcR_%3Dc->
>> >
QMRqFPYVyK1v3p67ViNaeLRr1emN%3DaXJRs7jBg%40mail.gmail.com
<http://40mail.gmail.com>
>> <http://40mail.gmail.com <http://40mail.gmail.com>>?
>> > utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
>> >
>>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"[email protected]" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/d/msgid/dev-platform/98318fe6-76b8-4e91-a985-b387b58f34a9%40mozilla.com.
