W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2013

Re: [Promises/Futures] Media Capture Task Force call

From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 17:19:15 +0000
To: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
CC: "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>, Harald Alvestrand <hta@google.com>, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
Message-ID: <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C2DFEF7@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
On 6/5/13 6:48 PM, Alex Russell wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> 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:

Thanks for joining!

>
> http://www.w3.org/2013/06/05-mediacap-minutes.html
>
> I don't think it's stretching the case to say that the reception was
> something close to hostile, if not outright incredulous.

I agree to that people did not exactly embrace Futures. I think it shall 
be seen in light of that the WebRTC is really complex. In addition to 
discussing the API design in W3C space, there is a huge controversy in 
the IETF - involving about four separate WGs - on signaling and 
protocols for setting up the real-time media and data over the network.

I think many are simply exhausted by discussing so many different topics 
in different groups, so they want to minimize changes wherever they can. 
(Regretfully there was also some arguing that Futures might be in 
fashion now but soon forgotten - I think that was beside the point.)

And I think almost no-one ruled out Futures, people more said "let us 
wait and see for a bit".

>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Regards
Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2013 17:21:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:20 UTC