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

Update pota, implements throwing moveBefore #1779

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

titoBouzout
Copy link
Contributor

This change implements the new "node state preserving api" moveBefore. see: whatwg/dom#1255

This is the set of changes I had to do potahtml/pota@51da4b8

Unfortunately, they are making it throw., you check a ridiculous amount of conditions or just wrap it in a try and catch, I suspect the performance of the swap rows will degrade on frameworks implementing this. The benchmark unfortunately only tests 2 moves[when the framework does the optimal thing]. So I'm not sure if it would be representative of the degradation. I am still curious what the results would be.

Thanks!

@WebReflection
Copy link
Contributor

imho, we should not implement stuff that has not officially landed yet or we'll make "their game" in doing so, when the "it's already shipped, too late to change it" card will be thrown next round of complains.

@titoBouzout
Copy link
Contributor Author

The DOM is a dictatorship, this api, custom elements, you name it. They ask for feedback but only listen to each other. The more broken the thing becomes the better, because the sooner will get replaced for something better by some next generation of developers.

I was not made to deal with the politics of this bs. I put users first, they don't, I will use whatever they give me, accept trade-offs, workaround what I can, because I'm powerless, and I value more the users that want to keep things focused when stuff updates in the screen than the purity of their bs and smell of their 💩 apis.

They have strong opinions on problems that they admit they don't understand. whatwg/dom#1255 (comment)

Maybe that's why you don't see too many framework/library developers giving feedback in such threads.

@WebReflection
Copy link
Contributor

I want to believe until it’s out it’s not as bad as it currently is, seeing lit, or others, already dogfooding that broken method name hurts back, doesn’t feel or sound as a win for anyone involved

@titoBouzout
Copy link
Contributor Author

You are right, just reverted, thanks for your comments

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants