Le 12/04/2011 18:41, David Bruant a écrit : > Hi, > > I'd like to share my experience on a recent experiment. First off, I'd > like to apologize for the name; "declarative object" doesn't really > capture it and may be confusing. Second of all, what I have created > doesn't really solve any use case (I'll discuss it), but offers at > most some syntactic sugar. Code can be found here : > https://github.com/DavidBruant/DeclO > > One idea is to have an object "o". This object can accept any property > name (get trap only in my case). Accessing a property will generate an > object on-the-fly which itself can accept any property name and > generate an object, etc. At the end, the object can be used as a > constructor to do something. Example: > --- > var a = new o.azerty.are.the.first.letters.of.my.keyboard(); > var b = new o.David.Bruant.writes.JavaScript(); > --- > The point could be to build something based on the property names > (stored in the propNames variable and added with the push l.8). Of > course, a constructor taking a string array could be as useful. That's > the reason why I said earlier it doesn't solve any use case. The > syntax sugar is the only added value I can think of. > The exact use of the string array is to be defined in the > constructTrap function. The pattern is here. > > Anyway, the main thing I want to share is a reflection on shared > handlers. At l.13, all proxies created on-the-fly use the same handler > object (I have purposefully not inlined it in l.10). > Thinking about shared handlers, I have realized that a proxy internal > state is "stored in" its method handlers and the way they interact > with each other, so this has to be taken into account when considering > sharing a handler among several proxies. > In order to share the same handler, some proxies must share the same > functions (even dynamically). Each function having a unique scope, it > means that these proxies must share their traps scopes. So, either the > state of several proxies is shared (like in my case where they share > "propNames" on purpose) or the shared scope could be reduced to a > WeakMap which in turn can store a per-instance "state". Both solutions > aren't mutually exclusive. Also, I'd like to note that for forwarding proxies, there is no way to share the handler since the target is in the scope of the functions. Unless the target is shared or as said before, the target is a value of an entry in a shared WeakMap.
David
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
