IDE Minutes 2008 12-16

From MemberWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

URL: http://www.openajax.org/member/wiki/IDE_Minutes_2008_12-16

Contents

Attendees

  • Jon Ferraiolo, IBM
  • Phil Berkland, IBM
  • Kin Blas, Adobe
  • Lori Hylan-Cho, Aptana
  • Nitin Dahyabhai, IBM

Minutes

Topic: Singletons

Jon: We had agreed previously to <class static="true">. Lori had second thoughts, and I proposed an <object> tag.

Lori: I seconded Jon's proposal.

Lori: Like <class>, but no constructor.

Jon: I'm not sure about all of the details, but that's the key concept.

Phil: What was the problem with static attribute?

Lori: Right now we don't have any way to have a class without a constructor. So we started wondering if there was a better way for expressing singletons. Having a separate elements will make the schema more straightforward.

Jon: I wasn't excited about the static attribute. It gave the class element two personalities.

Lori: And people wouldn't understand it.

Lori: Any objections to <object>?

Phil: I wonder if <object> is the best name. I guess it's fine with me, but maybe <singleton> would be better.

Jon: I like <object> because it allows a JSON structure to be defined in JavaScript terms, as an object with nested properties, where even a function property describe its parameters and return types within the structure. But <singleton> has more high-level semantics in parallel with <class> and <namespace>.

Phil: I don't care.

Lori: I could go either way. I like the simplicity of <object> and I think the semantic value of <singleton> is more important.

Jon: <singleton> is fine with me.

Kin: Is this a way to describe an object that might exist, such as a global instance of a class?

Jon: In that case, maybe you have a <singleton> for the global instance with a datatype that points to the class?

Lori/Jon: Need to think about that one.

Kin: Is this mostly for browser-native features or global instances?

Lori: The latter

Jon: Yes, but actually either, and the impetus for the feature came from something a bit different. Some Ajax libraries create global objects that have APIs on them. For example, window.OpenAjax is a global object. Sometimes these global objects function as namespaces, but if they have methods, they function more as singletons.

Lori: What about the Math object?

Jon: Describe with <singleton>.

Jon: How about I put <singleton> into the spec with red-colored comments to say that we are still working on the details?

Lori/Kin: Yes

Examples in spec

Kin: Can we add real-world examples to the spec? For example, how features from jQuery would be represented.

Lori: Would love that. In fact, we need to have that.

Kin: Sometimes I'm challenged by the spec

Lori: In our experience, people trying to use the spec make mistakes

Phil: We said every element should include examples

Jon: Yes. I have tried to add examples when I clean up a section, but lots of sections still need cleanup

Nitin: Should include examples from the Ajax frameworks

Lori: jQuery will have examples. Dojo is working on it. Ext is on the fence.

Kin: Spec readability will affect adoption.

Jon: I am planning to do editing between now and our next phone call in January.

Rechartering phone call

Jon: Reminder that there will be an IDE WG rechartering phone call on Friday. I'll send a reminder in email with call-in information.

Personal tools