Re: New Editor's Draft of MediaStream Image Capture

On 9/4/14 8:12 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:46 PM, Harald Alvestrand 
> <harald@alvestrand.no <mailto:harald@alvestrand.no>> wrote:
>
>     section 13:
>
>     I don't think WebIDL allows overloading of functions based on the
>     return value. (overloading based on the arguments is allowed).
>
>     Can the "promises" versions have different names, or the whole
>     interface have a different name?
>

Why not always return a Promise? If UAs keep firing on the old 
EventHandlers as well for a while then wouldn't old JS that ignored the 
return value and listened to the EventHandler instead just work? (I'm 
assuming it's safe to ignore promises if you have other means of 
detecting completion).

>  Why don't we just get rid of the non-Promises API? I think at this 
> point it's totally OK for specs to depend on Promises.

+1. Were you thinking of just ImageCapture or gUM too?

.: Jan-Ivar :.