- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 09:14:40 -0400
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Andrew Wilson <atwilson@google.com>, Peter Beverloo <beverloo@google.com>
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Peter Beverloo <beverloo@google.com> wrote: >> One argument I came across for overloading requestPermission is the >> following: >> Promise.all([ Notification.requestPermission(), >> swRegistration.push.requestPermission() ]).then(...); >> >> Might be worth considering, it's relatively cheap to support and can be >> implemented without breaking backwards compatibility. > > One minor risk with also returning a promise is that exceptions for > incorrect invocation would no longer throw an exception, but instead > reject the promise. > > Otherwise I would never expect this promise to be rejected as the user > declining notifications is not exceptional. Wait, what? Anytime you request something, not getting it is exceptional. Not sure how you can make an argument otherwise. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2014 13:15:26 UTC