Table of contents:
Better interoperability with JavaScript is one of the most highly requested features for Dart. Previous work has made JS interop possible, but gaps remain. This proposal outlines a series of usability improvements that, taken together, make it much easier to use JS from Dart and vice versa.
Here's an example of JS interop is like today, from the Firebase package:
import 'interop/app_interop.dart'; /// A Firebase App holds the initialization information for a collection /// of services. /// /// See: <https://firebase.google.com/docs/reference/js/firebase.app>. class App extends JsObjectWrapper<AppJsImpl> { // [ed: doc comments removed to condense code] static final _expando = Expando<App>(); String get name => jsObject.name; FirebaseOptions get options => jsObject.options; static App getInstance(AppJsImpl jsObject) { if (jsObject == null) { return null; } return _expando[jsObject] ??= App._fromJsObject(jsObject); } App._fromJsObject(AppJsImpl jsObject) : super.fromJsObject(jsObject); Auth auth() => Auth.getInstance(jsObject.auth()); Database database() => Database.getInstance(jsObject.database()); Future delete() => handleThenable(jsObject.delete()); Firestore firestore() => Firestore.getInstance(jsObject.firestore()); Storage storage([String url]) { var jsObjectStorage = (url != null) ? jsObject.storage(url) : jsObject.storage(); return Storage.getInstance(jsObjectStorage); } } // [ed: in interop/app_interop.dart] @JS('App') abstract class AppJsImpl { external String get name; external FirebaseOptions get options; external AuthJsImpl auth(); external DatabaseJsImpl database(); external PromiseJsImpl delete(); external StorageJsImpl storage([String url]); external FirestoreJsImpl firestore(); }
Nearly all of the Firebase classes are wrapped like that. It's a lot of work and boilerplate to implement wrappers like this, and it adds overhead to every operation.
What we'd like to write is more like this:
@JS() class App { external String get name; external FirebaseOptions get options; // Wrappers no longer necessary for these classes. external Auth auth(); external Database database(); external Firestore firestore(); // Promise -> Future is handled automatically external Future delete(); // Optional arguments are handled correctly by the compiler. // (In advanced cases, there are ways to declare overloads.) external Storage storage([String url]); }
The Google Maps API package is similar, but generated using the js_wrapping code generator:
@GeneratedFrom(_LatLngBounds) @JsName('google.maps.LatLngBounds') class LatLngBounds extends JsInterface { LatLngBounds([LatLng sw, LatLng ne]) : this.created(JsObject(context['google']['maps']['LatLngBounds'], [__codec0.encode(sw), __codec0.encode(ne)])); LatLngBounds.created(JsObject o) : super.created(o); bool contains(LatLng latLng) => asJsObject(this).callMethod('contains', [__codec0.encode(latLng)]); bool equals(LatLngBounds other) => asJsObject(this).callMethod('equals', [__codec1.encode(other)]); LatLngBounds extend(LatLng point) => __codec1 .decode(asJsObject(this).callMethod('extend', [__codec0.encode(point)])); LatLng get center => _getCenter(); LatLng _getCenter() => __codec0.decode(asJsObject(this).callMethod('getCenter')); LatLng get northEast => _getNorthEast(); LatLng _getNorthEast() => __codec0.decode(asJsObject(this).callMethod('getNorthEast')); LatLng get southWest => _getSouthWest(); LatLng _getSouthWest() => __codec0.decode(asJsObject(this).callMethod('getSouthWest')); bool intersects(LatLngBounds other) => asJsObject(this).callMethod('intersects', [__codec1.encode(other)]); bool get isEmpty => _isEmpty(); bool _isEmpty() => asJsObject(this).callMethod('isEmpty'); LatLng toSpan() => __codec0.decode(asJsObject(this).callMethod('toSpan')); String toString() => asJsObject(this).callMethod('toString'); String toUrlValue([num precision]) => asJsObject(this).callMethod('toUrlValue', [precision]); LatLngBounds union(LatLngBounds other) => __codec1 .decode(asJsObject(this).callMethod('union', [__codec1.encode(other)])); }
What we'd like to write instead:
@JS('google.maps.LatLngBounds') class LatLngBounds { external LatLngBounds([LatLng sw, LatLng ne]); external bool contains(LatLng latLng); external bool equals(LatLngBounds other); external LatLngBounds extend(LatLng point); external bool intersects(LatLngBounds other); external LatLng toSpan(); external String toString(); external String toUrlValue([num precision]); external LatLngBounds union(LatLngBounds other); @sealed LatLng get center => _getCenter(); @sealed LatLng get northEast => _getNorthEast(); @sealed LatLng get southWest => _getSouthWest(); @sealed bool get isEmpty => _isEmpty(); @JS('getCenter') external LatLng _getCenter(); @JS('getNorthEast') external LatLng _getNorthEast(); @JS('getSouthWest') external LatLng _getSouthWest(); @JS('isEmpty') external bool _isEmpty(); }
The rest of the proposal outlines how we get there, as well as many other usability and correctness improvements.
The key principle behind Dart and JS interop is declaring API signatures, as illustrated above. The two main pieces of this are @JS() annotations and the external keyword:
@JS('firebase.app') library firebase.app; import 'package:js/js.dart' show JS; @JS('App') class App { external String get name; // [...] }
The external keyword marks a class member or library member as representing a JavaScript API. It allows the body of the API to be omitted, and is only valid on a declaration that is in a @JS() context (either it is marked with @JS() itself, or is within a library/class that is marked).
The @JS() annotation marks a declaration (library, class, library member or class member) as representing a JavaScript API. An optional string can be provided, to specify the name of the declaration in JS. This allows APIs to be renamed. For example:
@JS() @anonymous class UserInfo { // [...] /// Returns a JSON-serializable representation of this object. @JS('toJSON') @JSConvert(dartify) external Map<String, dynamic> toJson(); }
In the example above toJSON() was named toJson() to match Dart naming conventions. (This also implicitly marks it as @sealed.)
Typed APIs provide many benefits:
Many JavaScript APIs have types now, either from TypeScript or Closure Compiler comments. We'd like to have a tool to automatically generate Dart interop APIs from those. The resulting file can then be hand edited, if desired, to further customize the interop, or used immediately.
The example above renames instance members, allowing the API to be made more Dart-friendly. This feature is crucial for interoperability, as the JavaScript API may have a name that is not legal in Dart, or its name may have different visibility, such as names starting with underscore.
Renames are made possible by taking advantage of the static type of the receiver. This is similar to static calls and extension methods.
UserInfo user = someExpression; print(user.toJson());
The compiler only needs to generate something like:
let user = someExpression; core.print(js.dartify(user.toJSON()));
Here a conversion was also inserted, based on the @JSConvert(dartify) annotation. Because it's static, the compilers are able to inline JS code if they choose to.
Static dispatch lets us reshape APIs in very powerful ways, without the overhead and complexity of wrappers. It also provides a good user experience in the IDE.
Notably, this interop is extremely similar to the language team‘s Static Extension Types and Static Extension Methods proposals. All members in a JS interop class that have Dart implementation code (i.e. function bodies, rather than external) are required to be nonextensible. If we get those language features, they’ll provide an alternate syntax, and offer additional capabilities.
In existing web compilers, there is some ambiguity about how fields on JS types are interpreted:
@JS() class MyJSClass { external int get foo; external set foo(int value); int bar; @JS() int baz; }
Both compilers support “foo”. DDC interprets “bar” as a getter/setter pair similar to “foo” but dart2js does not. Neither compiler recognizes the @JS on “baz”.
Existing JS interop code suggests we need to provide two features:
We can accomplish this by using @JS to indicate a JS field. With the new interpretation:
@JS() class MyJSClass { external int get foo; // external getter/setter external set foo(int value); @sealed int bar; // Dart extension field @JS() // sugar for external getter/setter, can't have an initializer int baz; }
The “extension field” is essentially an expando:
@JS() class MyJSClass { // [...] @sealed int get bar => _bar[this]; @sealed void set bar(value) { _bar[this] = value; } } final _bar = Expando<int>();
(Web compilers may implement it differently, such as a JS Symbol property stored on the instance.)
We may want a “JS interop checked mode” to instrument APIs and check that parameters and return types match their declarations. This would provide a lot of added safety. It could be turned on for tests, for example. If implemented, this would be an opt-in capability
To use typed APIs, we need to be able to pass data back and forth, and write type annotations for the parameters and return value. One of the key questions then is: can JS and Dart objects be passed directly, or is some type of conversion or wrappers required?
As the Firebase example illustrates, using wrappers everywhere has significant cost in code size, performance, and usability.
However, it is impossible to make every single Dart and JS object “just work” in the other environment. Consider this example:
external factory RecaptchaVerifier(container, [@JSConvert(jsify) Map<String, Object> parameters, App app]);
While JavaScript has a Map class now, many APIs still use raw JS Objects, such as { "size": "invisible" }. In Dart Map<String, Object> is an interface that at runtime, could contain any class that implements Map (including user-defined Maps). Dart's equality semantics (operator == and hashCode) are different from JS too.
(Even if we‘re only interested in Dart’s default LinkedHashMap with String keys, it would be difficult to make this work. The Map class would need to store its data as properties on itself. Some keys would not work correctly such as “proto”, and some operations would have different performance characteristics. The map can be modified from JS, so it's difficult to see how things like length and keys could be implemented efficiently.)
For these reasons, we can‘t take an all-or-nothing approach: ideally most types are wrapperless, but we’ll need good support for conversions too.
Wrapperless types are very convenient: you pass them back and forth, and they just work. Explicit conversions involve a lot of boilerplate that must be repeated everywhere. For example, we could've written the earlier toJson() example like this:
@JS() @anonymous class UserInfo { // [...] /// Returns a JSON-serializable representation of this object. @sealed Map<String, dynamic> toJson() => dartify(_toJson()); @JS('toJSON') external Map<String, dynamic> _toJson(); }
Or worse, the original version of the Recaptcha example shown earlier:
factory RecaptchaVerifier(container, [Map<String, dynamic> parameters, App app]) => (parameters != null) ? ((app != null) ? RecaptchaVerifier.fromJsObject(RecaptchaVerifierJsImpl( container, jsify(parameters), app.jsObject)) : RecaptchaVerifier.fromJsObject( RecaptchaVerifierJsImpl(container, jsify(parameters)))) : RecaptchaVerifier.fromJsObject(RecaptchaVerifierJsImpl(container)); // [ed: in interop/auth_interop.dart] external factory RecaptchaVerifierJsImpl(container, [Object parameters, AppJsImpl app]);
Implicit conversions reduce the boilerplate and make the types feel more like directly passed (wrapperless) types. They require less developer input to get the correct conversion. The downside is that the conversion is less visible, and the implications of conversions may surprise the developer. Overall these conversion are similar to “autoboxing” in C# and Java, and are probably a net usability benefit.
There's a language issue for implicit conversions, so that may provide us better support. The native FFI also has a similar mechanism for marshalling.
Similar to Array, functions from JS do not have reified type information and are allowed to be cast to any Dart function. This is already implemented in Dart web compilers.
Ideally Dart functions could also be directly passed to JS. However this is not the case in dart2js. It is not simple to change that, however.
In the meantime, automatic converisons will be provided:
allowInterop conversion.allowInterop conversion if the runtime value is a Dart function.@JS() to indicate that they should be treated as being passed to JS, implying an allowInterop conversion.@JS() to indicated they should be treated as being passed to JS, implying an allowInterop conversion.One particular challenge is that dartdevc (DDC) represents Dart functions as JS functions, so it is difficult to catch problems that may arise later in dart2js. It should not occur much in practice, thanks to implicit conversions, and the previously mentioned “checked mode” provides a means to catch it.
To pass functions between JS and Dart, we need to define how calling conventions work. The general principle is “when calling JS, work like JS”. Consider the first example again:
Storage storage([String url]) { var jsObjectStorage = (url != null) ? jsObject.storage(url) : jsObject.storage(); return Storage.getInstance(jsObjectStorage); } // What we'd like to write: external Storage storage([String url]);
Or for a more complex case, consider the Recaptcha example:
factory RecaptchaVerifier(container, [Map<String, dynamic> parameters, App app]) => (parameters != null) ? ((app != null) ? RecaptchaVerifier.fromJsObject(RecaptchaVerifierJsImpl( container, jsify(parameters), app.jsObject)) : RecaptchaVerifier.fromJsObject( RecaptchaVerifierJsImpl(container, jsify(parameters)))) : RecaptchaVerifier.fromJsObject(RecaptchaVerifierJsImpl(container)); // [ed: in interop/auth_interop.dart] external factory RecaptchaVerifierJsImpl(container, [Object parameters, AppJsImpl app]);
These methods are dispatching the call manually, to handle the difference in JS and Dart calling conventions: optional arguments are not passed as null in JS, but are visible via arguments.length and their value defaults to undefined rather than null.
What we'd like to write for Recaptcha is:
external factory RecaptchaVerifier(container, [@JSMapToObject() Map<String, Object> parameters, App app]);
Because it's now a JS function, the compilers must call it with the correct number of arguments. For example, this Dart code:
RecaptchaVerifier(container); RecaptchaVerifier(container, {'foo': 'bar'}); RecaptchaVerifier(container, {'foo': 'bar'}, app);
Should compile to JS code similar to:
new auth.RecaptchaVerifier(container); new auth.RecaptchaVerifier(container, {'foo': 'bar'}); new auth.RecaptchaVerifier(container, {'foo': 'bar'}, app);
If someone wants to forward multiple parameters, we could provide an annotation to help:
@JS() class Example { @sealed Object wrapsMethodWithOptionalArgs([Object foo, Object bar]) { // [...] return _underlyingJSMethod(foo, bar); } @JS('underlyingJSMethod') external Object _underlyingJSMethod( [@JSNullToOptional() Object foo, @JSNullToOptional() Object bar]); }
With @JSNullToOptional() the compiler would automatically check for null in those arguments and dispatch the call to the correct JS signature.
JS functions don't have a notion of named arguments; rather by convention, JS Object literals are passed, and optionally destructured into parameters by the callee.
Named arguments will be allowed as syntactic sugar for passing a JS object literal. For example:
class Example { external takesJSObject({String a, int b}) } f(Example e) { e.takesJSObject(a: 'hi', b: 123); }
Is equivalent to this JS:
function f(e) { e.takesJSObject({a: 'hi', b: 123}); }
Similarly if a Dart function that takes named arguments is passed to JS, it must desugar them. To make this work, we'll need to restrict JS function types to having only optional or named arguments, not both.
Method overloads do not exist in JavaScript. They can be helpful for expressing type signatures, and calling native APIs that are overloaded, such as Canvas's createImageData.
Overloads can be expressed by declaring multiple Dart methods and giving them the same JavaScript name:
// in CanvasRenderingContext2D @JS('createImageData') external ImageData createImageDataFromImage(ImageData imagedata); @JS() external ImageData createImageData(int sw, int sh);
If the author wanted to expose those as the same method, they could instead do:
@JS() external ImageData createImageData(imagedata_OR_sw, [int sh]);
Dispatching based on types should not generally be required, but if it is, it can be written like this:
@sealed ImageData createImageData(imagedata_OR_sw, [int sh]) { if (imagedata_OR_sw is int && sh != null) { return _createImageData(imagedata_OR_sw, sh); } else { return _createImageDataFromImage(imagedata_OR_sw); } } JS('createImageData') external ImageData _createImageDataFromImage(ImageData imagedata); @JS() external ImageData _createImageData(int sw, int sh);
The language team is also considering the problem of declaring Dart APIs like this, see issue 145.
JS functions have a hidden this parameter, and it is sometimes important for Dart to be able to pass that to JS, or receive it from JS.
That's accomplished with the @JSThis() annotation:
@JS('Object') abstract class JSObject { external static _JSObjectPrototype prototype; } @JS() @anonymous abstract class _JSObjectPrototype { external static bool hasOwnProperty(@JSThis() target, propertyKey); } @JS() @anonymous class PropertyDescriptor { @JS() Object value; @JS() bool writable; @JS() bool configurable; @JS() bool enumerable; external Object Function(@JSThis() Object) get; external void Function(@JSThis() Object, Object) set; }
This lets you declare which parameter should receive this/be passed as this.
Tearoffs of JS types should bind this, as noted in issue 32370. We also need to decide what runtime type information to attach. Tearoffs could get the statically visible type at the call site, or they could be treated like other JS functions, and be assignable to any function type. Untyped is advantageous for performance/simplicity, so it's probably preferrable, unless we find compelling examples.
JavaScript does not have reified generic types. Generic types can be used in interop signatures, but they have no effect at runtime, and no type argument is passed.
For JS code calling into exported Dart functions (e.g. @JSExport), generic type arguments will come through as a special, runtime-only type JSAny that represents the absence of a reified generic type. This is discussed further in the next section, about Generic Types, List and JS Array.
This section discusses specific data types, and has recommendations for how these should be handled in the Dart web compilers
Both Dart web compilers already use JS Array to implement Dart List<T> in a wrapperless style. The main challenge for JS interop is how to handle generic types.
Generic types in Dart are reified, in other words, generic type arguments are represented and stored at run time. These are used by is and as checks, for example, <int>[1, 2, 3] is List<int> will return true, and the cast <int>[1, 2, 3] as List<int> will succeed. But <int>[1, 2, 3] is List<String> will return false.
JavaScript cannot create Arrays that have an associated Dart generic type. Currently these are interpreted as List<dynamic>, which frequently results in a cast failure, or requires a workaround. For example:
List<App> get apps => firebase.apps // explicitly typing the param as dynamic to work-around // https://github.com/dart-lang/sdk/issues/33537 .map((dynamic e) => App.getInstance(e)) .toList(); // [in another file] @JS() external List<AppJsImpl> get apps;
The problem is that List<AppJsImpl> get apps actually returns List<dynamic>, so calls like .map will fail Dart's reified generic checks (because the list could contain anything, the parameter e must be typed to accept anything). This leads to other strange results, such as:
@JS() external List<String> get stringsFromJS; main() { // Either prints `true` or `false`! // True if the compiler optimizes it, false if it's evaluated at runtime. print(stringsFromJS is List<String>); List list = stringsFromJS; List<String> list2 = list; // type error: not a List<String>. }
The new version of this API is simply:
external List<App> get apps;
And it works mostly how you'd expect with is and as checks:
main() { List apps = firebase.apps; print(apps is List<App>); // true apps as List<App>; // works // prints list of names names, `(a)` is inferred as `(App a)` print(apps.map((a) => a.name).toList()); apps is List<int> // true: `int` could be from JS apps is List<MyDartClass> // false: can't be a list of Dart classes // (unless the class is exported to JS) }
The last check is an example of one consequence of the looser checking. Conceptually we have a JSAny type. This type only exists in runtime, and does not require a representation, since it results from the absence of type information. This is discussed later when we look at the type system.
Besides JS Arrays, Dart generic functions and methods can also be called from JS. In that case, the reified generic type will usually be omitted. This is discussed later when we look at exporting Dart classes to JS.
Dart web compilers generally treat these as interchangeable; while they don‘t create undefined themselves, it’s treated as == null. This makes interop easier, so it‘s probably worth keeping. We should also add an undefined constant to “package:js”, for cases where it’s necessary to pass it explicitly to JS.
JS Promises are very common in web APIs, as many operations are asynchronous. These function very similarly to Dart's Future<T> interface.
There are several possible answers:
Option 3 is not feasible. Option 2 is ideal, but may cause issues in dart2js, because they currently assume no JS types implement Future (this avoids “getInterceptor” overhead). So we probably need to go with Option 1. The dart:html library already has a conversion in one direction, and dartdevc may soon have both directions (to use JS async/await).
If we did want to do the adapter design, here is a rough sketch:
@JS('Promise') @JSInterfaceDispatch() @JSDynamicDispatch() // Note: because existing SDK native types support this. class JSPromise<T> implements Future<T> { @JS('then') external JSPromise<R> _then<R>( /*R | Thenable<R>*/Object Function(T) onFulfilled, [/*R | Thenable<R>*/Object Function(Object) onRejected]); external factory JSPromise.resolve(/*R | Thenable<R>*/Object value); Future<R> then<R>(FutureOr<R> onValue(T value), {Function onError}) { return _then( Zone.current.bindUnaryCallback(onValue), onError != null // Note: real impl must also support an `onError` callback that // takes a StackTrace as the second argument. ? Zone.current.bindUnaryCallback(onError as dynamic) : null); } // [...] } class _Future<T> implements Future<T> { // [...] // Note: in reality this could be injected by the compiler on any class // implementing Future<T> if we want them to be Promise-like. @JSExport('then') JSPromise<R> _jsThen<R>( /*R | Thenable<R>*/Object Function(T) onFulfilled, [/*R | Thenable<R>*/Object Function(Object) onRejected]) { Future<R> f = then((value) => JSPromise.resolve(onFulfilled(value)), onError: onRejected != null ? (error) => JSPromise.resolve(onRejected(error)) : null); // This conversion is not necessary if we only want to implement Thenable. return JSPromise.resolve(f); } }
All Dart Iterable<T> classes should implement [Symbol.iterator], which allows them to be used in JS for-of loops.
Converting from a JS iterable to a Dart Iterable requires a conversion (either implicit or explicit).
Avoiding a conversion is probably not ideal. We'd need Iterable<T> methods on any JS object that contains [Symbol.iterator]. This requires compilers to place Iterable<T> members on Object.prototype, or handle this at the interceptor level. The current theory is that not many JS APIs return iterables (Arrays are much more common). A wrapper-based conversion, either implicit or explcit, should be enought to handle this.
The EcmaScript draft contains a new feature for-await-of loops and Symbol.asyncIterator (see also MDN for-await-of). Once JS has that, Stream<T> could work similarly to Future<T>.
These will require a conversion in either direction. However we can provide helpers to make this easy. Consider this example from Firebase:
class Auth extends JsObjectWrapper<AuthJsImpl> { // [...] Func0 _onAuthUnsubscribe; StreamController<User> _changeController; Stream<User> get onAuthStateChanged { if (_changeController == null) { var nextWrapper = allowInterop((firebase_interop.UserJsImpl user) { _changeController.add(User.getInstance(user)); }); var errorWrapper = allowInterop((e) => _changeController.addError(e)); void startListen() { assert(_onAuthUnsubscribe == null); _onAuthUnsubscribe = jsObject.onAuthStateChanged(nextWrapper, errorWrapper); } void stopListen() { _onAuthUnsubscribe(); _onAuthUnsubscribe = null; } _changeController = StreamController<User>.broadcast( onListen: startListen, onCancel: stopListen, sync: true); } return _changeController.stream; } } // [in interop/auth_iterop.dart] @JS('Auth') class AuthJsImpl { // [...] external Func0 onAuthStateChanged(nextOrObserver, [Func1 opt_error, Func0 opt_completed]); }
With the right helpers and elimination of wrappers, this becomes:
@JS() class Auth { @sealed Stream<User> _changeStream; @JS('onAuthStateChanged') external Func0 _onAuthStateChanged(Func1<User, void> nextOrObserver, [Func1 opt_error, Func0 opt_completed]); @sealed Stream<User> get onAuthStateChanged => _changeStream ??= CreateStream(_onAuthStateChanged); } // Note: package:js will defined some helpers like this. // More research is needed to find all of the common patterns. static Stream<T> CreateStream<T>( @JS() Func0 Function(Func1<T, void> nextOrObserver, [Func1 opt_error]) subscribeToEvent) { Func0 unsubscribe; StreamController<T> controller; controller = StreamController.broadcast( onListen: () { // Because `subscribeToEvent` is annotated with `@JS()`, `allowInterop` // will be automatically handled on these callbacks. unsubscribe = subscribeToEvent(controller.add, controller.addError); }, onCancel: unsubscribe, sync: true); return controller.stream; }
Similar to Future/Promise, we can investigate and determine which of these is best:
At the very least, we'll provide JSMap<K, V> and JSSet<T> types in “package:js” that will implement the corresponding Dart interfaces and also be wrapperless JS Maps/Sets.
Both web compilers already use (or have prototyped use of) ES6 Map/Set under some circumstances, such as identity Maps/Sets. So it may be possible to have the objects returned by HashMap.identity() and HashSet.identity() simply be JS Map/Set respectively. That would be a nice feature, but is not necessary to provide good interop with these types.
Declaring a JS API as returning a Dart Map will be a hint, because it will probably not work the way the developer expects (if they are expecting a JS object to be interpreted as a Map). Instead they can:
JSMap<K, V> if they intended the JS Map class.JSObjectMap<K, V> if the return value is a JS object. It's a normal Dart class that implements Map and is backed by the JS Object. This indicates a wrapping conversion.@JSConvert() to provide a custom conversion to MapOpen question: are the generic type arguments to JSMap/JSSet reified if allocated in Dart? I think they should be, for consistency with List<T>. Similar to List<T> however, a Map allocated in JS could be cast to JSMap<K, V> for any types K and V that subtype JSAny.
Converting arbitrary Dart maps to JS Objects is probably not feasible, for reasons discussed in “Data Type Interoperability”. However we can provide a conversion:
external factory RecaptchaVerifier(container, [@JSConvert(jsify) Map<String, Object> parameters, App app]);
The jsify function is declared by Firebase, and does a deep conversion based on the specific types Firebase APIs use. However most of that will no longer be necessary, so we might be able to get away with:
external factory RecaptchaVerifier(container, [@MapToJSObject() Map<String, Object> parameters, App app]);
This uses a built-in shallow conversion from a Dart Map to a JS object.
To make it easier to work with JS objects via indexing, we could provide several classes in “package:js” to help:
@JS() @anonymous class JSIndexable<K extends Object, V extends Object> { external V operator [](K key); external void operator []=(K key, Object value); Map<K2, V2> toMap<K2, V2>() => JSObjectMap(this); } /// Wraps a JS Object in a Dart Map. class JSObjectMap<K, V> with MapMixin<K, V> implements Map<K, V> { final JSIndexable object; JSObjectMap([Object object]) : object = object as JSIndexable ?? JSIndexable(); factory JSObjectMap.from(Map other) => JSObjectMap<K, V>()..addAll(other); factory JSObjectMap.of(Map<K, V> other) = JSObjectMap.from; factory JSObjectMap.fromEntries(Iterable<MapEntry<K, V>> entries) => JSObjectMap<K, V>()..addEntries(entries); bool containsKey(Object key) => Reflect.has(object, key); V operator [](Object key) => object[key]; void operator []=(Object key, value) { object[key] = value; } List<K> get keys => Reflect.ownKeys(object) as List<K>; V remove(Object key) { if (Reflect.has(object, key)) { var result = object[key]; Reflect.deleteProperty(object, key); return result; } return null; } void clear() { for (var key in Reflect.ownKeys(object)) { Reflect.deleteProperty(object, key); } } }
Here JSObjectMap works like a normal Dart class, but it's easy to get the raw JS object from it. Meanwhile any JS object can be cast to JSIndexable to provide access to the index operators and the toMap() function.
NOTE: we probably won't want/need this, but I wanted to mention it as a possible optoon. It provides a means of implementing Dart interfaces from JS classes, that is reasonably friendly to optimizations.
An alternative design for JSObjectMap is to work similarly to JSIndexable. This provides a Map-like view of an arbitrary JS object. Then the question becomes: how do we cast our type to a Map<K, V>? Autoboxing would allow us to do that.
Here's a rough sketch:
@JS() @JSAutobox() class JSObjectMap<K, V> extends MapBase<K, V> { factory JSObjectMap() => _create(null); factory JSObjectMap.from(Map other) => _create<K, V>(null)..addAll(other); factory JSObjectMap.of(Map<K, V> other) = JSObjectMap.from; factory JSObjectMap.fromEntries(Iterable<MapEntry<K, V>> entries) => _create<K, V>(null)..addEntries(entries); @JS('create') external static JSObjectMap<K2, V2> _create<K2, V2>(Object proto); external V operator [](Object key); external void operator []=(Object key, Object value); bool containsKey(Object key) => Reflect.has(this, key); List<K> get keys => Reflect.ownKeys(this) as List<K>; V remove(Object key) { if (Reflect.has(this, key)) { var result = this[key]; Reflect.deleteProperty(this, key); return result; } return null; } void clear() { for (var key in Reflect.ownKeys(this)) { Reflect.deleteProperty(this, key); } } }
Because this type uses @JSAutobox(), the JS object will be automatically boxed when cast to any Dart interface that it implements (except for dart:core Object). This reduces the boilerplate that might otherwise be required.
The benefit of this approach is that any JS object can be freely cast to JSObjectMap, providing efficient access using Map-like APIs. For example, let's revist our UserInfo.toJson() example:
@JS() @anonymous class UserInfo { // [...] /// Returns a JSON-serializable representation of this object. @JS('toJSON') external JSObjectMap<String, dynamic> toJson(); } // [code snippet from auth_test.dart] test('toJson()', () async { // [...] var userMap = userCredential.user.toJson(); expect(userMap, isNotNull); expect(userMap as Map, isNotEmpty); // [note: `as Map` was added] expect(userMap["displayName"], "Other User"); expect(userMap["photoURL"], "http://google.com"); // [...] });
Consider the line expect(userMap as Map, isNotEmpty) in this example. The as Map is necessary to trigger boxing, so the isNotEmpty matcher will work.
Autoboxing would be a neat way to provide support for implementing Dart interfaces from JS. Autoboxing has proven useful in other languages for native interop. It may be useful for advanced JS interop scenarios, such as providing a dart:html-like API without JS dynamic/interface dispatch.
In many cases JS interop can take advantage of virtual dispatch, even with @sealed, because the JS method it calls will dispatch with normal JS rules (i.e. lookup the property on the prototype chain). @sealed procludes overrides of itself with another Dart member, however.
We support virtual Dart methods on JS types, with a bit more work. This doesn't compromise the model very much, but it does add additional dispatch cost. Implementing interfaces and dynamic dispatch would still be restricted.
In the future, we may want to provide something like @JSInterfaceDispatch() or @JSDynamicDispatch(), that preserves RTTI and enables interface/dynamic dispatch. Our compilers already support this, as they use it themselves for core types in the SDK, and for the HTML libraries.
There are several issues with exposing this:
Scoped extension method approaches for dynamic languages may help for the naming conflicts (e.g. as discussed in this paper), but those have performance/complexity/usability tradeoffs.
Many users have requested flags to disable dynamic dispatch, so this may not be the direction we need go. Implementing interfaces can be useful however. (The “autoboxing” approach discussed previously may be a possible compromise.)
One question that comes up occasionally is how to use JS Proxy from Dart. We can expose JSProxy from “package:js”:
@JS('Proxy') class JSProxy { external factory JSProxy(Object target, JSProxyHadler handler); } @JS() @anonymous abstract class JSProxyHandler { // Note: these are defined as field to allow only a subset of them to be // implemented @JS() Object Function(Object target) getPrototypeOf; @JS() Object Function(Object target, Object proto) setPrototypeOf; // [...] @JS() bool Function(Object target, Object key) has; @JS() Object Function(Object target, Object key) get; @JS() Object Function(Object target, Object key, Object value) set; @JS() bool Function(Object target, Object key) deleteProperty; external factory JSProxyHandler({ this.getPrototypeOf, this.setPrototypeOf, this.get, this.set, this.has, this.deleteProperty /* [...] */}); }
It‘s possible to implement a proxy handler that forwards to Dart’s noSuchMethod, or the reverse, if someone wanted to do that.
(It‘s also possible to have a noSuchMethod that uses JS Reflect and Object APIs to access the JS object. It’s not necessary though, because @JS() classes are essentially a more optimized form of that.)
JS Reflection APIs are useful for low level support, and these can be provided by “package:js”:
@JS('Reflect') class JSReflect { external static Object apply(target, thisArgument, argumentsList); external static Object construct(target, argumentsList, [newTarget]); external static bool defineProperty( target, propertyKey, PropertyDescriptor attributes); external static bool deleteProperty(target, propertyKey, [receiver]); external static Object get(target, propertyKey); external static PropertyDescriptor getOwnPropertyDescriptor( target, propertyKey); external static Object getPrototypeOf(target); external static bool has(target, propertyKey); external static bool isExtensible(target); external static List<Object> ownKeys(target); external static void preventExtensions(); external static set(target, propertyKey, value, [receiver]); external static setPrototypeOf(target, prototype); static bool hasOwnProperty(target, propertyKey) { // Note: could also be implemented using `getOwnPropertyDescriptor` return _JSObject.prototype.hasOwnProperty(target, propertyKey); } static Object getOwnProperty(target, propertyKey) { var desc = getOwnPropertyDescriptor(target, propertyKey); if (desc == null) return null; if (desc.get != null) return desc.get(target); return desc.value; } } @JS('Object') abstract class _JSObject { external static _JSObjectPrototype prototype; } @JS() @anonymous abstract class _JSObjectPrototype { external static bool hasOwnProperty(@JSThis() target, propertyKey); } @JS() @anonymous class PropertyDescriptor { Object value; bool writable; bool configurable; bool enumerable; Object Function(@JSThis() Object) get; void Function(@JSThis() Object, Object) set; }
Dart functions and accessors can be exported to JS with @JSExport. A compiler must provide a version of the function that is callable via the JS interop calling conventions described earlier, and ensure that version of the function is used when it is passed to JavaScript. (It may have other versions of the function that use optimized, dart-specific calling conventions.)
This will use @JSExport similar to top-level functions/accessors.
TODO: more details here
Conceptually extending a JS class from Dart is similar to adding methods, because super calls are statically dispatched. The tricky part is what to do with constructors. JS constructors are normally written as external factory which precludes extending them. Also there are some notable differences in field initialization+super constructor call order between Dart and JS.
(JS requires super before initializing fields, Dart requires super after initializing final fields. Dart's approach is nice because it prevents virtual methods from observing uninitialized state. But for interop, the problem is that the two orders are incompatible.)
We may be able to provide a method that creates your class:
class MyDartClass extends TheirJSClass { final int x = 1; int y, z; factory MyDartClass(int y, int z) { // super constructpr parameters passed here? var self = createJS<MyDartClass>(); self.y = y; self.z = z; return self; } // ... }
It's not the most satisfying solution, but it seems like a relatively easy way to support this.
TODO: extending a Dart class from JS
We'll need a way to declare a JS interop library corresponds to a JS module. This could be done on the library tag:
@JSImport('goog.editor', moduleFormat: 'closure') library goog.editor;
The compiler can then generate the appropriate import, instead of a global reference. This will need to be coordinated with the overall build and server system, however, to ensure the JS module is available to the module loader (requirejs, ES6 imports, etc).
Typically the module format will be assumed to be passed in globally to the compiler, as there is generally one standardized module format, so that argument won't be present. (Closure library is illustrated here as it can be used in addition to other formats, it may be useful to tell the compiler “this module is definitely a closure namespace, import it as such”.)
One common pattern that comes up is converting “getX” methods into “get X” getters. We could add @JSMethod syntactic sugar to simplify that. Consider this prior example of a Google Maps API:
LatLng get center => _getCenter(); LatLng get northEast => _getNorthEast(); LatLng get southWest => _getSouthWest(); bool get isEmpty => _isEmpty(); @JS('getCenter') external LatLng _getCenter(); @JS('getNorthEast') external LatLng _getNorthEast(); @JS('getSouthWest') external LatLng _getSouthWest(); @JS('isEmpty') external bool _isEmpty();
It could be written as:
@JSMethod('getCenter') external LatLng get center; @JSMethod('getNorthEast') external LatLng get northEast; @JSMethod('getSouthWest') external LatLng get southWest; @JSMethod('isEmpty') external bool get isEmpty;
As discussed earlier, at runtime the absence of reified type information will be tracked with a JSAny type. JSAny can contain types that may originate from JS, and it only exists at run time. Here are some examples:
import 'package:firebase/firebase.dart' show App, Database; import 'package:firebase/firebase.dart' as firebase; main() { List apps = firebase.apps; apps is List<Object> // true: Object can hold JS types apps is List<int> // true: `int` could be from JS apps is List<List> // true: `List` could be from JS apps is List<Database> // true: could be a list of any JS interop types apps is List<MyDartClass> // false: can't be a Dart class apps is List<Stopwatch> // false: can't be a Dart class like Stopwatch }
We'll probably want to provide access to JS typeof and instanceof as library functions in “package:js”.
The proposed typing rules for JSAny allow it assigned to/from these types:
@JS())@JSExport())List<JSAny>This type will not exist in the static type system. The hope is that these restrictions keep the unsoundness restricted to objects allocated from JS, and to types that are likely to be used by existing JS APIs. By excluding Dart classes, we're able to catch things like List<JSAny> assigned to List<MyDartClass>, which is unlikely to work.
Open question: should preserve reified JSAny if that type parameter is used to construct other types? For example:
@JS() external List foo(); bar() { var list = foo(); var set = list.toSet() as Set<int>; // does this work? // ... }
Here's a rough breakdown of the features into different categories. Details subject to change. The items are not in any particular order.
Required features (P0):
Important features (P1):
Nice to have features (P2):
@JSMethodFeatures for building “package:html” (P2?):
Most of the features described here are backwards compatible, relative to the set of JS interop supported by both web compilers.
One question that came up is interfaces: currently JS interop classes can be implemented by Dart classes (although this may lead to inconsistent behavior between the compilers). If @sealed Dart members are added to a JS interop class, then it won‘t be legal to implement that as an interface. But this is a new feature, so it’s only “breaking” in the sense that adding @sealed members is a breaking change for the package API. (Technically: adding any public member to a Dart class is a breaking change, for this reason. In practice many types are not intended to be used as interfaces, so they don't treat new members as breaking).
If we discover something that is too backwards incompatible, we can add new annotations and leave the current behavior for the existing ones. Or we can bump the major version on “package:js”. There's a lot of possibilities.
A: If the JSON is relatively typed, then it can be
A: Yes! All of these features would be helpful:
external on fields (sugar for external getter/setter)In the meantime, this proposal provides a way to improve interop, and is intended to be compatible with those features.
A: Probably, especially for the static features.
If both compilers are exclusively using Kernel, much of this can be implemented as a Kernel transform. The static checking can also be done in a shared way.
Dynamic dispatch, calling conventions, and runtime type checks, and native SDK types are different between the two compilers, so those details would require separete work.
A: It does not. Dart classes can be tree-shaken, unless they're explicitly exported to JS. Static dispatch members can be tree shaken. Static JS Interop types, by design, do not require any runtime type information (RTTI). Opt-in features like interface or dynamic dispatch will cause more RTTI to be retained.
This question may be referring to “dart:html”. It supports dynamic dispatch, and this causes RTTI to be retained, unless great care is taken on the part of dart:html authors (to carefully annotate return types, and avoid untyped results) and by developers (to carefully avoid dynamic calls that use names in “dart:html”, and to avoid JS interop features that could return HTML elements).
We may be able to find a better solution, such a providing new “package:html” bindings that are mostly static (and using interface/dynamic dispatch sparingly, in places where it's really needed).
A: It‘s certainly possible to imagine interop that works “like JS” (example from Closure Library’s goog.editor Example):
// Hypothetical dynamic interop dynamic goog = window.goog; dynamic myField = goog.editor.Field.new('editMe'); // Create and register all of the editing plugins you want to use. myField.registerPlugin(goog.editor.plugins.BasicTextFormatter.new());
The problem is it‘ll run into the same issues around data type conversions, but it won’t be able to address them without wrapper classes. As illustrated by the “.new” it will never be as simple as copying and pasting JS code, and there won't be any tooling to help.
What we may want to do is provide a way to write small chunk of JS code (in a Dart file), similar to GWT. But that shouldn't be used much, with the improvements in this proposal to calling conventions and easy ways to access properties on JS objects.