Behavior Attachment

WORK IN PROGRESS

Overview and Examples in the Wild

Behavior can be viewed as a modular unit of Javascript, DOM elements, and CSS styles, designed to be loosely coupled with its consumer, which could be either a document or another behavior. Behavior attachment is a mechanism for composing behaviors.

HTML, as exists today, does not provide an organized way of attaching behavior to a DOM element. While you can add individual scripting methods, properties and event handlers to it, there is no way to do this atomically and with proper encapsulation.

Javascript Frameworks

In Web applications, this deficiency is addressed at a library level, with every Javascript framework attempting to solve this problem. Here is a quick overview of approaches:

Library	Behavior Attachment Implementation
Dijit (Dojo's UI Library)	Creates a parallel object hierarchy to create illusion of homogenous object space, with full wrappers around DOM objects. Relies on inheritance-style approach by assigning each DOM element a dojoType attribute in markup, then traversing DOM and attaching corresponding behavior.
Google Web Toolkit	Also uses parallel object hierarchy to shield the user from behavior attachment deficiency, relying on inheritance for compartmentalization and reuse.
JQuery UI	A good balance of insulation from DOM objects with just-in-time wrapping. Progressive enhancement is the adopted technique of applying behavior. The behavior is transient and often an API is provide to detach it. It's interesting that the API is very late-bound and based on passing strings as method names.
Prototype	Uses prototype inheritance chain to bestow new properties/methods on a DOM element. The changes are purely additive and imply permanent change in context of document’s lifetime.
Sencha	Aggressive insulation from DOM with a Javascript objects as proxies, simple inheritance model (even maps ids of the underlying DOM elements to the variable names).
SproutCore	Again, Javascript objects as proxies, extensive inheritance-based hierarchy of UI objects.

Two interesting symptoms emerge after analysis of the approaches:

• Parallel object hierarchies. Since there is no way to incorporate a DOM element into object hierarchy, Javascript objects typically expose behavior-specific APIs, while using DOM objects as building blocks underneath. This extra layer of indirection has a negative impact on framework interoperability and is generally a leaky abstraction.
• Dynamic-sounding techniques for permanently attaching behavior. In the absence of a way to instantiate a DOM element with a new behavior attached, many frameworks use decoration/mixin-like patterns in its place. However the semantics and effect of application is one-way in most cases, indicating that the actual intent is to attach behavior as close to element instantiation as possible.

Extensions

Behavior attachment is also used by browsers extensions, where an extension script, running in the context of the document, may attach extra behavior (including UI), to give the user more functionality within a document. Typical examples of such extensions are:

• Auto Replay for YouTube
• Scroll To Top Button
• Hover Zoom
• Craigslist Helper

The main challenge for these extensions is to add and remove behavior to DOM elements (including extra DOM elements) to an existing document with least disruption, preferably in a way where the scripts of the document aren’t ever aware of these behavior attachments.

Built-in HTML Elements

Another example of behavior attachment can sometimes be found in the browser itself, where complex built-in controls are created using hidden DOM structures, also known as shadow DOM. Here are a few examples in WebKit:

• input element
• audio and video element. This one is interesting, because it's composed out of other HTML elements with attached behavior (like input[type=range]).
• details element

This behavior attachment is singular and permanent, surviving throughout the lifetime of the element. Encapsulation is an important property for this behavior attachment, since the browser should never leak the implementation details of the HTML elements to the document.

Behavior Attachment Methods

To better understand the intent of behavior attachment, we can split these examples in the wild into two general groups:

• An element behavior attachment, where the behavior is permanently associated with the element and creates a new type of element.
• A decorator behavior attachment, where transient behaviors are given to or taken away from an element, modifying aspects of its properties, but leave the identity of an element intact; and

The table below provides a comprehensive comparison between the two methods:

	Element	Decorator
Purpose	Create new content building blocks.	Give existing content new behavior and/or appearance.
Paradigm	Object-Oriented Programming	Aspect-Oriented Programming
Compartmentalization and Reuse Vehicle	Inheritance	Aspect
Symptoms	There is only one behavior that is typically associated with an element. There is a desire to minimize the time when an element has no associated behavior.	It is expected that an element may abruptly enter or exit association with the behavior. There is a desire to not intrude on the original properties of an element.
Examples of Use	Implement built-in HTML controls: input/textarea, media, etc. Define an element to represent a customizable calendar view. Define a button row control with application-specific grouping logic (see GMail button bars).	Add special UI treatment to all vcards in a document. Create an extension to provide extra download options for certain types of links.
Identity	Creates a new type of element.	Does not change the identity of the element.
Lifetime	Permanent, originates with the element’s creation and exists through the lifetime.	Transient, added and removed dynamically.
Environment	Full control of content.	Foreign document or limited control of content.
Defining Traits	Composable Interoperable	Unobtrusive Dynamic
Shadow Tree	Only one tree, initialized as the element is created. Inherited shadow trees can be reused, nested in the element's tree.	Each decorator must have its own shadow subtree, and the aggregate shadow tree of an element is composed out of these subtrees.
DOM API	Explicitly interested in exposing methods or properties on the DOM element as its API.	Should avoid adding any extra methods or properties to the DOM element that’s being decorated.

Analysis of Existing Specifications and Implementations

What does XBL2 do?

• There are two ways to bind: using binding element (inline or via external document) and using CSS. The former somewhat matches the notion to be element behavior, and the latter is the decorator behavior. However, there is no distinct difference in the attachment mechanism.
• Inheritance is entirely self-contained, using “extends” attribute. However, the prototype chain of the implementation object is fixed up to follow inherited bindings.
• There is a fair bit of machinery specified to marry the aspect and inheritance concepts seamlessly.
• There is no notion of extending DOM elements.

What does XBL1 do?

• There does not seem to be a separation between these two decorator and element behavior attachment. The http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla2.0/source/toolkit/content/xul.css seems to indicate the need for element attachment.

What does HTC do?

• HTC does not have the concept of shadow DOM, but the specified behavior is firmly an element behavior attachment.

What does sXBL do?

• It appears that the spec is abandoned, but the gist is similar to XBL2, except there is only one shadow tree, direct access to shadow subtree, and a binding model that seems to indicate element behavior attachment, but using decorator API.