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

Re: On a Futures-style API

From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 03:19:52 -0700
Message-ID: <CACvaWvY2tmCHL1r3p94OX3KwXOLCRPXvDnTDXVoMe28E6NC9Sw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Aymeric Vitte <vitteaymeric@gmail.com>
Cc: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, "Richard L. Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com>, "public-webcrypto@w3.org Working Group" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
On Apr 24, 2013 2:45 AM, "Aymeric Vitte" <vitteaymeric@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Le 24/04/2013 01:28, Ryan Sleevi a écrit :
>
>> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Aymeric Vitte <vitteaymeric@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>
>>> Le 23/04/2013 19:50, Ryan Sleevi a écrit :
>>>
>>>> A sample reworking of the WD is at
>>>>
>>>>
https://github.com/slightlyoff/DOMFuture/blob/master/reworked_APIs/WebCrytpo/after.idl
>>>
>>> Why the code examples at the end are not updated with the Future style?
>>>
> I saw Alex's answer about updating the examples, this would help to
understand how this works now.
>
>> The above IDL is not a formal update to the spec - that is still
>> pending. It was just a sample.
>>
>>> Could Futures solve ISSUE-22?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>> The WG reached consensus to close ISSUE-22 and take no further action
>> in the spec on our last conference call.
>
>
> Then the WG is going to close something for which there are real use
cases and living examples...
>
> I am not very familiar with Futures but I was wondering if a process
Future could not continue to be chained after you have invoked a finish
Future, this would simply solve ISSUE-22.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> jCore
> Email :  avitte@jcore.fr
> iAnonym : http://www.ianonym.com
> node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor
> GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms
> Web :    www.jcore.fr
> Webble : www.webble.it
> Extract Widget Mobile : www.extractwidget.com
> BlimpMe! : www.blimpme.com
>

Aymeric - you are not going to find what you're asking for as a side effect
of something else. It will need to. E specced. And the WG has reached
consensus not to spec this for this version of the API.

Which is to directly answer your question and say "No, it will not. It has
no relationship whatsoever to ISSUE-22."
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2013 10:20:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:17:16 UTC