Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

alloc ArrayBuffers in correct global #377

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 16, 2017
Merged

Conversation

equalsJeffH
Copy link
Contributor

..fixes #293, see #293 (comment)

@vijaybh
Copy link
Contributor

vijaybh commented Mar 15, 2017

This looks right to me, but I'm way out of my depth here. jyasskin or bzbarsky would be much more appropriate reviewers, though Github won't let me @ mention them or add them to the review here. Perhaps @jcjones can do a more informed review.

@equalsJeffH
Copy link
Contributor Author

jyasskin or bzbarsky would be much more appropriate reviewers, though Github won't let me @ mention them or add them to the review here.

Indeed, I also attempted to add them to the reviewers list. @jyasskin should be able to be so added now that he is a formal member of the working group, but it may rely on having "write perms" to the repo (?)...

@equalsJeffH
Copy link
Contributor Author

also, I asked for @bzbarsky review over in issue #293

@equalsJeffH
Copy link
Contributor Author

Given this comment #293 (comment) over on issue #293 -- might we get @jyasskin and/or @bzbarsky review of this PR and if it's OK then we merge it? thx :)

Copy link
Member

@jyasskin jyasskin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks like it accurately implements Boris's suggestions. I also double-checked that you associated all object creations with a global, and I think you did. The ClientData creations that you didn't modify are all just used inside their algorithms and not returned to JS, so they're fine.

I think it's a bit overkill, and that we should wait to insist that new specs follow this style until core specs like Fetch and HTML update, but I don't object to the improvement.

@vijaybh vijaybh merged commit be9240a into master Mar 16, 2017
@vijaybh vijaybh deleted the jeffh-fixup-algs-contd branch March 16, 2017 18:12
@equalsJeffH
Copy link
Contributor Author

equalsJeffH commented Mar 16, 2017

Thanks for the review @jyasskin

...we should wait to insist that new specs follow this style until core specs like Fetch and HTML update, but I don't object to the improvement.

I'm not sure I understand -- did you mean to say "...that we should wait on insisting that new specs follow this style because updates to core specs like Fetch and HTML may obviate it..." ?

in any case, we've merged this and it's just a few detail-level things that ought to be updatable to whatever emerges in Fetch & HTML. thx again.

WebAuthnBot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 16, 2017
@jyasskin
Copy link
Member

@equalsJeffH No, I'm complaining at @bzbarsky. If the core web specs haven't updated even partially to a new style, we shouldn't be asking more peripheral specs like this one to update yet. There's no problem with this one updating; it's just work you didn't need to do yet.

@bzbarsky
Copy link

bzbarsky commented Mar 18, 2017

I guess from my point of view it's easier to make improvements in stuff that's being created than it is to refactor existing things. But yes, I agree we need to fix the existing things...

The other part of this, honestly, is that I am quite confident that fetch and HTML will continue to be edited, so they will get updated. I have much less confidence in that for other specs, especially ones the W3C owns. Witness the recent dissolution of the webcrypto working group and the responses to questions about who will maintain the specs which more or less came down to "good luck with that" as far as I can tell. :(

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Please ensure that all ArrayBuffer creations are done explicitly, in the correct global
4 participants