On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Rafael Weinstein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello all, > > I'd like to propose two repo/design changes: > > 1) Merge the NodeBind Repo into TemplateBinding. > > This will basically mean just moving the source & tests from NodeBind into > TemplateBinding. This doesn't really change the design of the system (at > least yet), but it does acknowledge that these two things really go > together. It's one less repo to deal with and it means that we can > eventually write a single pseudo-spec for the whole system and have it be > in one place. > I think that the two are related, but have very different roles and should not be mixed in order to keep the api boundaries and responsibilities clear. Node.bind is about binding some model to something in a node and enabling two communication with the node. TemplateBinding is all about taking a template finding all bindings, creating a clone of the template and setting up all bindings via Node.bind. Node.bind is a primitive that could be useful in many scenarios outside of template instantiation, for this reason I think that the two should work together really well, but should be kept apart. > > 2) Remove Node.prototype.unbind, Node.prototype.unbindAll. > > It's somewhat less clear to me that nodes should ever be unbind-able > (rebind-able, or imperatively bind-able beyond template instancing, for > that matter). The only use-case we've encountered for doing this is > cleaning up (shutting down observation). However, if WeakRefs become > available in ES or if TemplateBinding/NodeBind get standardized (and > therefore make weak references available from c++), cleaning up observation > can be a concern of the node itself, and not require external interaction. > > Thus, the current design where Node.prototype.bind() is returning a > "close-able" object is really only internal API for the prollyfill. > > The main motivation for doing this is perf. Unbinding and setting up the > .bindings object during construction are significant work. > > I know that Polymer is currently using unbind and unbindAll(), but my > proposal is for polymer to do what TemplateBinding does, which is to keep > an array of closeable objects for each fragment that will eventually need > to be cleaned up, rather than traverse a fragment and unbind all nodes. > +1 > > 3) Make Node.prototype.bindings run-time enable-able. > > Again, this is significant work for which I know of only one use case > (which is tooling -- e.g. the sandbox app). > > I propose that we allow the bindings of a Node to be reflectable only if > some well known switch is enabled. This is analogous to devtools using > internal APIs to enable reflection. > What's this "significant work"? Initializing one object and populating it's fields when a binding is set up? Anything else? I'm on the fence with this one because of the great debugging story that it enables. \i > > Concerns? > > > Follow Polymer on Google+: plus.google.com/107187849809354688692 > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Polymer" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/CABMdHiTQTi8hbSQzvTvAiRt9ySiL6jzRcOxVhWGV%3DbRpQkhEtg%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/CABMdHiTQTi8hbSQzvTvAiRt9ySiL6jzRcOxVhWGV%3DbRpQkhEtg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > Follow Polymer on Google+: plus.google.com/107187849809354688692 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Polymer" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/CAO9zZYOYU8WKVOweqbqTbvxuV8Kg8PGjd6ynYn5rwULmbNQ7Tg%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
