[PATCH 4/9] mshtml: Use builtin hooks even when calling function dispatch objects.

[Jacek Caban]

On 12/7/21 7:52 PM, Gabriel Ivăncescu wrote:
>> That just doesn't make sense at all. Once we support prototypes 
>> document.body.setAttribute === 
>> document.createElement("div").setAttribute === 
>> document.head.__proto__.setAttribute === Element.setAttribute. It's 
>> one and the same function object, not separated quirk holders. Hooks 
>> are an implementation details of such abstract functions in context 
>> of a specific object type and there is nothing special about that. 
>> They are not a part of function object itself.
>>
>
> I did mention the prototype means it is the same function object, I 
> was using a hypothetical example with quirks. My point was that *if* 
> they end up being different functions (for any reason), using 
> func_info_t is more correct because it represents two different 
> functions, with possibly two different hooks.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I did not find yet a case where such a quirk 
> exists, that's why I mentioned it's hypothetical. Although I did find 
> some duplicated props in some places. Anyway I think it's more 
> technically correct, and can be easier handled in the future *if* we 
> find such quirks.


No, it's not correct. body element hooks from your example are free to 
cast 'this' object to HTMLBodyElement. If it did that, you'd end up 
casting div element object to HTMLBodyElement and likely crash.


>>
>> That all said, I'm not attached to representing those as DISPIDs. It 
>> just feels safe to continue using them here, but it's possible that 
>> something separated will be better at some point. Your current 
>> solution just exposes some MSHTML internals for no real need.
>>
>
> Well, they're opaque, so not exposed at all. It's pretty common to 
> pass "context" or "user" pointers around in callbacks (which is what 
> this is). Do you think renaming it to "context" is better then? 
> jscript won't really care what it is, just has to pass it back to the 
> callback. 


I think that it needs to fit the rest of the design, so I would need to 
see more of it to answer properly. It's not really something I expected. 
I imagined that the interface exposed by MSHTML object could look like this:


interface IJSDispatchHost

{

     HRESULT getJSDispatch(IJSDispatch **p);

     HRESULT setJSDispatch(IJSDispatch *jsdisp); // or maybe expose a 
constructor from the script engine itself and call it from MSHTML instead

     HRESULT getOwnProperty( ... );

     HRESULT call(DISPID dispid, unsigned int argc, VARIANT *argv, 
VARIANT *r);

     // probably more

}


On top of that, you'd need a constructor for such wrapped objects, so 
another interface exposed by script engine itself will likely be needed. 
I don't see why you need anything else.


Thanks,

Jacek

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/attachments/20211207/904d1354/attachment.htm>