I'm for 1) , having a constructor with side effects is confusing and inconsistent with the platform (and other languages).
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglaz...@google.com>wrote: > Folks, > > Throughout the year-long (whoa!) history of the Shadow DOM spec, > various people commented on how odd the constructable ShadowRoot > pattern was: > > var root = new ShadowRoot(host); // both creates an instance *and* > makes an association between this instance and host. > > People (I cc'd most of them) noted various quirks, from the > side-effectey constructor to relatively uncommon style of the API. > > I once was of the strong opinion that having a nice, constructable > object has better ergonomics and would overcome the mentioned code > smells. > > But... As we're discussing traversable shadows and the possibility of > having Element.shadowRoot, the idea of changing to a factory pattern > now looks more appealing: > > var element = document.querySelector('div#foo'); > alert(element.shadowRoot); // null > var root = element.addShadowRoot({ resetStyleInheritance: true }); > alert(root === element.shadowRoot); // true > var root2 = element.addShadowRoot(); > alert(root === element.shadowRoot); // false > alert(root2 === element.shadowRoot); // true > > You gotta admit this looks very consistent and natural relative to how > DOM APIs work today. > > We could still keep constructable object syntax as alternative method > or ditch it altogether and make calling constructor throw an > exception. > > What do you think, folks? In the spirit of last night's events, let's vote: > > 1) element.addShadowRoot rocks! Let's make it the One True Way! > 2) Keep ShadowRoot constructable! Factories stink! > 3) Let's have both! > 4) element.addShadowRoot, but ONLY if we have traversable shadow trees > 5) Kodos. > > :DG< > > P.S. I would like to retain the atomic quality of the operation: > instantiate+associate in one go. There's a whole forest of problems > awaits those who contemplate detached shadow roots. > >