[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Public WebGL] Last-minute comments/questions for 1.0.1 spec/tests



On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Benoit Jacob <bjacob@mozilla.com> wrote:
> On 30/11/11 06:21 PM, James Robinson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com
>> <mailto:kbr@google.com>> wrote:
>>
>>    On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Benoit Jacob <bjacob@mozilla.com
>>    <mailto:bjacob@mozilla.com>> wrote:
>>
>>        On 28/11/11 08:17 PM, Kenneth Russell wrote:
>>
>>                    3. Firefox happens to ensure that identical calls to
>>                    getUniformLocation
>>                    return the _same_ WebGLUniformLocation object, but I
>>                    don't remember if/where
>>                    this is mandated by the spec? And if there is a test
>>                    for that?
>>
>>
>>
>>                I don't think there is a test for that nor do I think
>>                it's in the spec.
>>                Should it be?
>>
>>
>>            It isn't currently in the spec. Similar text could be added
>>            as that
>>            for getExtension().
>>
>>            I don't have a strong opinion about whether to make this
>>            change at the
>>            current time. It seems minor and that it hasn't impacted
>>            application
>>            compatibility. Benoit, if you feel strongly, would you sign
>>            up for the
>>            spec change and the addition to the conformance suite?
>>
>>
>>        I don't feel strongly at all about that. On the contrary, if
>>        Chrome hasn't been doing this and nobody's every complained
>>        about it, it probably means that it's not a useful feature. So
>>        we should keep the spec as-is and I'll remove this feature from
>>        Firefox which will also simplify code.
>>
>>
>>    WebKit (both Safari and Chrome) hasn't been caching
>>    WebGLUniformLocations. No complaints as far as I have heard.
>>
>>
>> If we are OK with not caching, then we need to mandate not caching in
>> the spec or people will hang expandos on the return value.  This has
>> happened before for other specs and been a real mess to clean up.
>>
>> This means in particular the following should be false and tested:
>>
>> context.getUniformLocation(program, "foo")
>> === context.getUniformLocation(program, "foo")
>> context.getUniformLocation(program, "foo").happy =
>> "lala"; context.getUniformLocation(program, "foo").happy == "lala";
>>
>> Same goes for any other API that returns a JS object instead of a JS
>> value.
>
>
> Sound like a good idea. May I add such a change while I'm at it? I don't see
> right away any other functions in need for such a test, since other getters
> returning objects explicitly return objects that have been explicitly
> created (i.e. the spec already says that === should be true). I could be
> missing something though.

Sounds fine to me. Let's take care of these corner case issues now
rather than postponing them.

-Ken

-----------------------------------------------------------
You are currently subscribed to public_webgl@khronos.org.
To unsubscribe, send an email to majordomo@khronos.org with
the following command in the body of your email:
unsubscribe public_webgl
-----------------------------------------------------------