Making functional events simpler #1199
Conversation
docs/index.bs
Outdated
| Specifications *may* define an algorithm |callbackSteps| where the corresponding <a>functional event</a> can be created and fired with specification specific objects. The algorithm is passed <var ignore>globalObject</var> (a {{ServiceWorkerGlobalScope}} object) at which it *may* fire its <a>functional events</a>. This algorithm is called on a <a>task</a> <a lt="queue a task">queued</a> by <a>Handle Functional Event</a> algorithm. | ||
|
|
||
| Note: See an <a href="https://notifications.spec.whatwg.org/#activating-a-notification">example</a> hook defined in <a biblio data-biblio-type="informative" lt="notifications">Notifications API</a>. | ||
| To request a <a>functional event</a> dispatch to the [=service worker registration/active worker=] of a [=/service worker registration=], specifications *may* invoke <a>fire a functional event</a>. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nit: SW uses some PascalCase with intervening space for algorithm names. HTML, Fetch, and many others use lower case letters. Streams use PascalCase.. I always wanted to discuss if we better change our naming practice for algorithms' name?
docs/index.bs
Outdated
| @@ -3105,35 +3101,57 @@ spec: webappsec-referrer-policy; urlPrefix: https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-refe | |||
| </section> | |||
|
|
|||
| <section algorithm> | |||
| <h3 id="handle-functional-event-algorithm"><dfn export>Handle Functional Event</dfn></h3> | |||
| <h3 id="fire-functional-event-algorithm"><dfn export>Fire a Functional Event</dfn></h3> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nit: Fire Functional Event for consistency, but opened to any suggestion for naming practice.
docs/index.bs
Outdated
| :: |registration|, a [=/service worker registration=] | ||
| :: |callbackSteps|, an algorithm | ||
| :: |initializationSteps|, optional steps to initialise |event|, constructed from |eventConstructor| |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems we should explicitly provide |createdEvent| as an argument to |initializationSteps| so the callers will set up the properties to it when needed. Just as you did with |dispatchedEvent| to |postDispatchSteps|.
docs/index.bs
Outdated
| : propertyName | ||
| :: value | ||
| : anotherPropertyName | ||
| :: anotherValue |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems callers should give us an |initializationSteps| where they set up the properties themselves (rather than providing the properties to Fire Functional Event as an argument)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I did it this way to match invocations of https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-event-fire, but I'm not against making it sub-steps.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I thought the |initializationSteps| would be a place where the properties can be initialized. But checking out the DOM spec link that you shared, I'm fine with that too.
|
@jakearchibald, I'm happy with the changes this PR's addressing. When we get to the final snapshot, backporting to V1 seems nice. |
docs/index.bs
Outdated
|
|
||
| : Input | ||
| :: |event|, an {{ExtendableEvent}} object | ||
| :: |eventName|, a DOMString |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it needs to be just a string for internal algorithms.
jakearchibald
force-pushed
the
functional-event
branch
from
ab1a929 to
dae02eb
Compare
|
@jungkees I've rebased this and also updated the v1 spec. I think it's best to stick with property initialisation rather than a complete set of steps for now, just to be similar to "fire an event". Happy to change it later if that turns out to be bad. |
docs/index.bs
Outdated
| Specifications *may* define an algorithm |callbackSteps| where the corresponding <a>functional event</a> can be created and fired with specification specific objects. The algorithm is passed <var ignore>globalObject</var> (a {{ServiceWorkerGlobalScope}} object) at which it *may* fire its <a>functional events</a>. This algorithm is called on a <a>task</a> <a lt="queue a task">queued</a> by <a>Handle Functional Event</a> algorithm. | ||
|
|
||
| Note: See an <a href="https://notifications.spec.whatwg.org/#activating-a-notification">example</a> hook defined in <a biblio data-biblio-type="informative" lt="notifications">Notifications API</a>. | ||
| To request a [=functional event=] dispatch to the [=service worker registration/active worker=] of a [=/service worker registration=], specifications *may* invoke [=Fire Functional Event=]. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This isn't an issue this PR brought. Would it be better to change the conformance requirement language to should or even must? I think there's a chance that some prospective specs might want to define their own steps intentionally. So, should seems to be a good requirement for this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I went for 'should', as there may be reasons why another spec needs to do it manually
|
LGTM with a comment on the conformance requirement language. It'd be great if you could make PRs to the call sites :). |
This is a fix for #1196.
I took inspiration from fire an event.
This should clear up the confusion around realms and it make it easier for other specs.
@jungkees if you're happy with this, I'll port this to V1 and submit PRs to the specs that fire functional events.
Preview | Diff