On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 7:07 AM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com> wrote: > On 9/9/14 8:25 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote: > >> I've said this before, but..... >> >> is there any reason why getting usermedia with a promise needs to have >> the same name as getUserMedia? >> > > No technical reason, no. > > If we define a new function called requestUserMedia(), there's zero >> compatibility problems. >> > > Except there's zero compatibility problems with overloading the existing > function as well, since it returns void, and callback args can be made > optional. > This seems like an especially bad idea. We've already had one Firefox bug this month that could have been averted by tighter argument checking. I don't see the problem with defining a new API point that uses promises. This also has the advantage that you could do it later. -Ekr
Received on Wednesday, 10 September 2014 15:26:59 UTC