- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 12:16:50 +0100
- To: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
- Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Ron Buckton <rbuckton@chronicles.org>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com> wrote: > This is what I've sketched in various places, including for Anne WRT XHR. I > suppose (without any cause) that folks would pick up on the idea that the > minimal Future superclass was being explicitly designed to be subclassable > to address issues like this and progress notification. Perhaps we need to > call it out more explicitly in the spec? The specification does need to address that better, in particular what then() and catch() might return for subclassed futures. We found use cases both for returning a new instance of the subclassed future itself (ProgressFuture) and simply returning a new "base" future (for the crypto APIs). I think we want to define some of the common ones directly in the specification. That will a) help people designing their own and b) encourage some level of consistency. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 1 May 2013 11:17:17 UTC