- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 18:11:24 +0200
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- CC: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 08/04/2013 17:56 , Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Randell Jesup<randell-ietf@jesup.org> wrote: >> >I looked at some of the links mentioned, and while interesting I'm not >> >entire clear on how this would affect the real-world usage of application >> >writers; I'd want to see the impact on code they'd write, and evaluate how >> >much of existing code and examples could survive this change with minimal >> >mods or with mechanical rewrites. Also, I'd want to talk about how >> >coordinated support for futures is or would be among the major browser >> >vendors. > Basically: > > getUserMedia(options, accept, reject) > > becomes: > > getUserMedia(options).done(accept, reject) > > And: > > obj.takePhoto() > obj.onphoto = accept > obj.onphotoerror = reject > > becomes: > > obj.takePhoto().done(accept, reject) > > (It has still not been explained why these follow a distinct pattern.) Indeed. If this group insists on shipping with designs that have repeatedly been shown to be harmful and hated it's entirely its prerogative, but please at least stick to only one of the hurting approaches — not all of them at once! Consistency can help ease the degree of pain those of us who then have to code using these things have to put up with :) -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Monday, 8 April 2013 16:11:42 UTC