[worklets] (bikeshedding time!) import() name is potentially confusing...

[bfgeek]

So the import function has been noted as potentially confusing.

Other names which have been discussed at some point are:
loadModule (@adamk)
distributeScript (@annevk)

For additional context the other way to invoke scripts will be via the script tag most likely, e.g.

<script worklet="paint" src="paint.js"></script>

Which is the same as

CSS.paintWorklet.import('paint.js');

From #373 originally.

[annevk]

Is there a dedicated issue for the script element extension? That will need some bikeshedding as well. In particular, it probably needs to use the type attribute to avoid running the script in older browsers.

[bfgeek]

Filed: #376 for designing that.

[bfgeek]

cc/ @nyaxt, @nhiroki for naming suggestions :)

[nhiroki]

Yeah, Worklet.import() and module’s import statement are so confusing when we discuss the design of implementation.

I feel Worklet.distributeScript() (or Worklet.distributeModule()) would be more descriptive of its behavior.

Other idea: Worklet.spawn()?

[annevk]

I like spawn, short and sweet.

cc @domenic

[domenic]

I don't have strong opinions. import() isn't that bad IMO. spawn() seems nice if it fits with the model. importInto() is another idea.

[bfgeek]

cc @surma halp.

[nyaxt]

I'm ok with import() or spawn()

[nhiroki]

Just in case, my previous comment is from implementer's pov. Probably web developers have different impressions, and I'm also ok with import() if they aren't confused by it :)

[surma]

(Before I start: I could settle for spawn(), but I don’t think import() is confusing – on the contrary, its functionality is pretty similar, warranting a similar name. Edit: Or just create()?)

Okay, here goes: This has been bugging me for a while but I never said anything because I thought this was a done deal, but I guess now is my chance 😅

I always found it weird that theres some sort of magic global for each worklet that loads code. That code then proceeds to create an instance of something that – from there on in – would usually be referred to as “my XYZ Worklet”.

Taking some inspiration from workers, I’d find something like new CSS.PaintWorklet('myfile.js') much more intuitive. You‘d have a proper reference to hold on to for message passing and deregistering etc. Wondering what others think, if that’s semantically coherent and whether I just lost all credibility.

[surma]

it probably needs to use the type attribute

What would the type look like, here? application/javascript+XYZWorklet?

[jakearchibald]

Module scripts don't use a mime type, so this probably shouldn't. I think that discussion is happening in #376.

[jakearchibald]

A constructor like @surma suggests makes sense if having an instance is useful.

In terms of a method, does it need to be more complicated than:

await CSS.paintWorklet.add('paint.js');