2011/7/28 Andreas Rossberg <[email protected]> > On 28 July 2011 10:35, David Bruant <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think we discussed already the idea of "proxy" being passed as a data > > property to the handler and came to the conclusion that it may not be a > good > > idea, because it breaks the stratification. If two proxies use the same > > handler as in [2], then, there is an ambiguity on what the value of this > > property should be. > > The solution we discussed is to simply use prototypes. That is, share > handler methods by putting them on a (single) prototype object, and > have per-proxy instances that carry the individual proxy references > (or other per-proxy data, for that matter).
I agree that's a good pattern to achieve application-specific per-proxy handler state, but it doesn't standardize the proxy-backlink, so handler authors cannot in general rely on the existence of e.g. a |handler.proxy| property. That precludes the two use cases outlined in my previous mail, which relate to generic trap code that should work with any proxy handler. Cheers, Tom
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
