On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <[email protected]> wrote: > 1) Somehow magically chain "create" callbacks. In Lucy's case, > <foo-lucy> will call both Raj's and Lucy's callbacks. > 2) Get rid of a separate lifecycle object and just put the callbacks > on the prototype object, similar to printCallback > (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2013Jan/0259.html)
> I am leaning toward the second solution, but wanted to get your opinions. I also like the second solution, but Hajime's point about the mutability and general exposure of the lifecycle methods is a good one. Is there a motivation for having the lifecycle objects on the prototype as opposed to being passed in as an "ancestor" parameter? XBL1, as I understand it, automatically calls the constructor/destructor of "extended" bindings, but given the ad hoc nature of web components' inheritance, it seems like it would be much less surprising to make this stuff explicit *somewhere* (i.e. in the actual components rather than in the engine). -- Blake Kaplan
