- From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 19:06:12 +0200
- To: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
- Cc: "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>, Harald Alvestrand <hta@google.com>, Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
Le mercredi 05 juin 2013 à 17:47 +0100, Alex Russell a écrit : > As part of our agreed work to help coordinate with WG's about > idiomaticness and cleanliness of APIs, Anne and I joined the Media > Capture group for a call today to discuss the adoption of > Promises/Futures in their API. The minutes are here: > > http://www.w3.org/2013/06/05-mediacap-minutes.html Thanks for joining the call! > I don't think it's stretching the case to say that the reception was > something close to hostile, if not outright incredulous. I think there was some regrettable hostility; I don't think it is unreasonable for people to still be incredulous on Futures since they haven't been exposed in the platform so far. > Unlike some other groups which I've had the pleasure to work with, > participants here seem to be worried that a relatively minor change > (and a backward compatible one) is a major compatibility risk. To clarify, I think most of the worry was around moving to a non-backwards compatible change (i.e. support only the Future model, not support both the Future model and the current callback model); for the backward-compatible change, people seemed less worried, but more inclined to wait and see before adopting an approach that is younger than our APIs (and in particular that isn't shipping while our APIs are). > Perhaps further discussion of the acceptance of Promises across the > W3C might ease their minds, and I was hoping those here with more > experience might be able to guide the discussion to a less contentious > conclusion. > I think wider adoption of Promises would help; shipping implementations would help too. As far as trying to find a less contentious conclusion, I've just offered to develop and maintain a Future-fork of the spec, which would let the group decide before moving to CR and removing implementation prefixes whether a pure-Future approach was preferable to a callback approach (possibly later complemented with a Future one): http://www.w3.org/mid/1370448905.20417.349.camel@cumulustier If the group feels that's realistic, then I would certainly appreciate getting help in doing that. Dom
Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2013 17:06:31 UTC