W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > April 2013

RE: VideoStreamTrack: takePhoto()

From: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 20:46:55 +0000
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Message-ID: <249666637C001845A448E1EA8F1996D004142C@TK5EX14MBXC292.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

Can you put together some guidelines for general API patterns that would be ideally suited for Futures? These Futures (as included in your DOM spec) are brand-new off the press, and I wouldn't recommend adopting them until I knew how to appropriately use them (recognizing what the known good patterns are) and why it’s a better approach than the events/callbacks model which has been debated in the past.

In other words, is this change for change's sake or do Futures really make the design superior?

This question has much broader applicability than just the Media Capture Task Force, and I'd expect you'd want to re-use this rationale document as you approach a variety of different working groups with these type of requests.

Personally, I like the idea, but I think you need to sell it better than this :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: annevankesteren@gmail.com [mailto:annevankesteren@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Anne van Kesteren
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 9:43 AM
To: public-media-capture@w3.org
Subject: VideoStreamTrack: takePhoto()

I think this method should return a Future instead that is resolved with the Blob if it succeeds and some indication of error if something failed.


Received on Tuesday, 2 April 2013 20:47:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:24:40 UTC