W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: Future cancellation

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 13:55:48 +0100
Message-ID: <CADnb78iPtU5m1i04p--sJGfuN94xtpNxTKV4H68dZtmW2az=PQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bill Frantz <frantz@pwpconsult.com>
Cc: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.com>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Bill Frantz <frantz@pwpconsult.com> wrote:
> Upon further reflection, I think the point about premature standardization
> stands.

FWIW, that answer does not work for the web. If people want a
particular API it will be made, shipped, and network effects will
prevent us from ever removing it. So we should try to figure out some
answers here. In hindsight some of those decisions may/will turn out
to be wrong, which will help us doing make better decisions going
forward. If we find out soon enough we might be able to rectify a few
things.

There is a clear desire for lots of new platform APIs that will be
shipping soon (or are shipping already) and for those platform APIs to
be better than those created thus far. Futures may not be perfect, but
do represent a *huge* improvement over the options available to date.
It follows they'll be used and adapted as needed. We can either choose
to influence that or have others make the decisions for us.


> Also, a pure inheritance model -- which is implied by subclassing -- may be
> the wrong model. If one wants to include POLA in one's programming style,
> one will probably want to separate the authority to access the resulting
> value from the authority to abort the computation.



--
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2013 12:56:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:37:49 UTC