22646 2013-07-11 20:33:48 +0000 So if we want to say on a per-object basis whether it ought to be exposed to workers (which I think is useful) lets introduce "exposed to document environments", "exposed to worker environments", and [...] 2017-12-06 11:29:20 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WebAppsWG WebIDL unspecified Other other RESOLVED WORKSFORME [v1] P3 normal --- 22705 23780 24218 1 contributor cam annevk cam ian mike Ms2ger public-script-coord travil w3c public-webapps-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 90648 0 contributor 2013-07-11 20:33:48 +0000 Specification: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/ Multipage: http://www.whatwg.org/C#exposed-to-javascript Complete: http://www.whatwg.org/c#exposed-to-javascript Referrer: Comment: So if we want to say on a per-object basis whether it ought to be exposed to workers (which I think is useful) lets introduce "exposed to document environments", "exposed to worker environments", and "exposed to document and worker environments" as shorthands. Posted from: 66.207.208.98 User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_8_4) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/29.0.1547.3 Safari/537.36 90649 1 w3c 2013-07-11 20:37:36 +0000 sounds useful. 90653 2 ian 2013-07-11 21:29:17 +0000 we could just have [Exposed=Worker], [Exposed=Window] (default), [Exposed=Window,Worker] 91167 3 ian 2013-07-23 22:54:52 +0000 Reassigning to heycam for consideration in WebIDL. Please reassign to me once either there is WebIDL syntax for this or it's been decided to only do this in prose, not WebIDL. Thanks! 91171 4 annevk 2013-07-23 23:06:32 +0000 Comment 2 can be tied with the new [Global] extended attribute I think. 96633 5 annevk 2013-11-21 12:48:51 +0000 This should also support having a class exposed on both and then have a partial class supported on just one. 98928 6 cam 2014-01-23 03:35:49 +0000 Just looking at this again now. Would [Exposed] only control whether an interface object is visible or not? 98946 7 annevk 2014-01-23 15:43:16 +0000 What I have been wanting to do is things like this: [Exposed=Window,Worker] interface XMLHttpRequest { ... } [Exposed=Window] partial interface XMLHttpRequest { ... responseXML ... } So it would be more than that if I had my way. 98956 8 travil 2014-01-23 19:29:03 +0000 Do we need more fine-grained management? For example, the Web Perf WG asked about including only _some_ APIs on their window.performance object, but not others (e.g., performance.now() everywhere, but not necessarily the statistics objects...) 98958 9 cam 2014-01-23 21:01:20 +0000 It should be fine to allow [Exposed] on partial interfaces, as well as on individual interface members if that's needed. But in terms of actual concrete effects, is hiding/exposing the interface object property on the global the only thing that needs to be done? 98959 10 annevk 2014-01-23 21:18:53 +0000 Yeah I think so. That's all that interface XMLHttpRequest {} does after all. This is just a way to scope that to particular globals. 98984 11 cam 2014-01-24 07:05:18 +0000 https://github.com/heycam/webidl/commit/b38006ce3682fc07c1be52a49130bea5e42e7c78 Summary: * Window should change its [Global] to [PrimaryGlobal] * the [Global] on SharedWorkerGlobalScope and DedicatedWorkerGlobalScope should become [Global=Worker] * you can use [Exposed=Worker] or [Exposed=Window,Worker] as appropriate on interfaces, interface members, partial interfaces, and dictionaries that have constructors. 99018 12 annevk 2014-01-24 18:05:54 +0000 Cameron, can we tag [Global=Worker,DedicatedWorker]? It seems we need granularity like that for certain features. Especially with the new ServiceWorkerGlobalScope. 99092 13 cam 2014-01-25 23:29:26 +0000 Sure: https://github.com/heycam/webidl/commit/3aa9313b571b7f4b86846cc025d0f7e967eea1b1 99183 14 ian 2014-01-27 19:45:18 +0000 heycam: Why do you have this restriction?: # If [Exposed] appears on an overloaded operation, then it must appear on all # overloads, with the same identifier list. Consider e.g. APIs that in workers take a string or an integer, but in Windows take a string, an integer, or a DOM node. 99198 15 cam 2014-01-27 21:19:38 +0000 It would have been a bigger change to allow the set of operations that are involved in overloading to be different, so I decided to disallow it until we're sure we need it. Do we need it? :) 99213 16 contributor 2014-01-27 23:09:08 +0000 Checked in as WHATWG revision r8425. Check-in comment: Update the spec to say what's exposed to workers: take 1 http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=8424&to=8425 99214 17 ian 2014-01-27 23:14:48 +0000 Ok, I welcome review of the above. I'm especially interested in how I used it here, where there's an attribute with a different definition for workers than it has for Window: http://whatwg.org/html/#the-messageevent-interfaces 99233 18 cam 2014-01-28 00:44:05 +0000 (In reply to Ian 'Hixie' Hickson from comment #17) > Ok, I welcome review of the above. I'm especially interested in how I used > it here, where there's an attribute with a different definition for workers > than it has for Window: > > http://whatwg.org/html/#the-messageevent-interfaces Ah so that is a problem, I guess. Currently I disallow any duplicate attribute names on an interface, not looking at [Exposed]. Given that the dictionary still has the union, and that as with XHR.send() still having Document in the types is OK, do you need to split the attribute in two here? 99352 19 ian 2014-01-28 20:34:22 +0000 I guess not? But shouldn't it be non-conforming for me to have an attribute that returns an interface type that isn't exposed? The dictionary is fine because the interface isn't exposed so you can't possibly set the dictionary to a value that uses the interface. But the attribute in theory could be used by a user agent in a way that returns that interface even in a worker, despite the interface not being exposed... I dunno, it just seemed like something that should be done for completeness. How about this, is this ok?: 99353 20 contributor 2014-01-28 20:34:34 +0000 Checked in as WHATWG revision r8430. Check-in comment: Try doing this a different way (MessageEvent.source exposure) http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=8429&to=8430 99355 21 annevk 2014-01-28 20:38:26 +0000 That approach does not work for FormData of which the constructor takes a HTMLFormElement. Given that FormData is exposed in Window and Worker I think it should be okay if HTMLFormElement ends up being impossible in the Worker context. 99356 22 ian 2014-01-28 21:35:46 +0000 For arguments, I don't think there's a problem with just exposing them everywhere. It's black-box indistinguishable from not exposing them (unless it's a constructor that only takes unexposed types, since then it'd be uncallable, but I'm not aware of any such cases). It's return values I'm more worried about. 99379 23 cam 2014-01-29 00:56:01 +0000 (In reply to contributor from comment #20) > Checked in as WHATWG revision r8430. > Check-in comment: Try doing this a different way (MessageEvent.source > exposure) > http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=8429&to=8430 This has the same problems; the checking of duplicate attribute (and operation) identifiers is done on the whole set of members, not looking at [Exposed]. How about I just add a conformance requirement that says for an object associated with a global with a particular global name, only objects with interfaces that are exposed in that global may be returned? 99426 24 ian 2014-01-29 17:55:37 +0000 That would work. 99459 25 ian 2014-01-30 02:41:43 +0000 Ok, I've moved MessageEvent.source back. I think that concludes everything that I need to do for this bug. Sending back to heycam for the comment 23 update. 99460 26 contributor 2014-01-30 02:41:55 +0000 Checked in as WHATWG revision r8444. Check-in comment: Ok, go back to exposing MessageEvent.source in one form everywhere, relying on WebIDL for the rest of the logic here http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=8443&to=8444 129001 27 annevk 2017-12-06 11:29:20 +0000 The way we do this is by checking the current global object, defined in HTML. See https://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/ for an example if you need this.