Robin Berjon wrote:
• "Need to define which IDL specification we are going to conform to,
if any."
This came up on xml-dev, where OMG IDL was blamed for the fact that we
have createElement() and createElementNS() in the DOM instead of just
one (there may be other reasons). I am all for forgetting about OMG
IDL, but I think we need to consider the following:
Some languages, like ECMAScript, don't have support for overloading, so
blaiming OMG IDL is a bit wrong.
- some folks generate Java interfaces from the IDLs. I think we're
safe so long as we generate a binding from what we have (which is easy
to add to ReSpec, I can do it)
- some implementations (Mozilla?) seem to use OMG IDL. Would they be
fine with something else, or with hacking the something else
themselves, or if we generated something more kosher and let them do
whatever workaround they do to get around it for stuff they already
support?
Overloaded functions are a pain in mozilla. Since ECMAScript doesn't
have overloaded functions we end up having custom glue code everywhere
overloading and optional arguments exist. And since we're using OMG IDL
we have to stick functions with the same name in separate interfaces
which of course isn't a useful solution in the long run.
I can be done, but it's something I rather avoid.
/ Jonas
