- From: Tobie Langel <tobie.langel@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 18:03:34 +0200
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Andrew Wilson <atwilson@google.com>, WHATWG List <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>, Peter Beverloo <beverloo@google.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 5:59 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 1:31 AM, Tobie Langel <tobie.langel@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> The question is whether it's not natural to assume that *if the promise
> >> fulfills*, that means they got permission. This allows them to do things
> >> like using Promise.all() to join multiple permission requests together
> and
> >> get a nice combined promise that fulfills when everything succeeds,
> >
> >
> > This is as simple as:
> >
> > Promise.all(permissionRequests).then(function(results) {
> > if (results.every(x => x === "granted")) // …
> > });
> >
> > But I don't think it's the right approach to handling permissions in
> > general. Developers should handle granted permissions as progressive
> > enhancements, not balk when they don't get all the permissions they
> > required. Using exceptions for denied permissions sends a completely
> wrong
> > message imho, especially when it's combined with Promise.all.
>
> I don't think moral arguments really have a place here. Whatever
> mitigation code that authors write to handle failed permissions can go
> in the reject handler exactly as easily as in the fulfill handler.
> That we believe authors should handle permission failures
> intelligently doesn't, itself, mean that we should make the success
> path less convenient.
>
I don't see how your definition of success is less of a moral argument than
mine, but I'm happy to be enlightened.
--tobie
Received on Wednesday, 8 October 2014 16:04:01 UTC