[webkit-dev] Question about Constructors in WebKit JS Bindings

[Adam Barth]

I don't mean to pick on workers specifically.  We have lots of bugs in
the bindings where we attach the __proto__ property of new objects to
the wrong prototype chain.  My specific concern is that we should fix
these bugs.  :)

Adam


On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Drew Wilson<atwilson at google.com> wrote:
> BTW, Adam - can you elaborate your specific concerns?
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Drew Wilson <atwilson at google.com> wrote:
>>
>> Not sure. There's language in the WebIDL spec around prototype objects of
>> interface objects, but I'm not sure how window.Worker.prototype is intended
>> to relate to
>> new Worker().prototype (if at all), based on my 10 minutes of scanning specs.
>> -atw
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Adam Barth <abarth at webkit.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> 2009/6/23 Drew Wilson <atwilson at google.com>:
>>> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Adam Barth <abarth at webkit.org> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > I am not even sure all of these should have the same behavior,
>>> >> > however. For instance, as I read the Web Workers spec, the lexical
>>> >> > global
>>> >> > object may be correct thing to use for the Worker constructor.
>>> >>
>>> >> I looked at the spec briefly.  What leads you to think that?  It's
>>> >> probably a bug in the spec.
>>> >
>>> > Section 4.5 of the web workers spec reads:
>>> >>
>>> >> Given a script's global scope o when creating or obtaining a worker,
>>> >> the list of relevant Document objects to add depends on the type of o. If o
>>> >> is a WorkerGlobalScope object (i.e. if we are creating a nested worker),
>>> >> then the relevant Documents are the Documents that are in o's own list of
>>> >> the worker's Documents. Otherwise, o is a Window object, and the relevant
>>> >> Document is just the Document that is the active document of the Window
>>> >> object o.
>>> >
>>> > So it seems to imply that parent document for a worker is derived from
>>> > the currently executing script's global scope. I'll ping IanH about this -
>>> > it may not be what he intended.
>>>
>>> There's another question, which is where does the prototype chain of
>>> the JS object you get out of the worker constructor point?  It might
>>> not have anything to do with this Document calculation.
>>>
>>> Adam
>>
>
>