On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 9:45 PM, Kris Maglione <kmaglione@mozilla.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 04:05:08PM +0200, Sebastian Noack wrote: > >> As for compatibility with the existing Chrome extension API, I think that >> won't be an issue. We could just have methods take an optional callback >> and >> return also promise. IMO this would make more sense than a separate >> namespace or a new manifest option/version. >> > > That's the approach that Firefox currently takes for the `browser` > namespace, but we're likely to move to only supporting promises in that > namespace if that's what winds up in the spec. I think that for the sake of > simplicity and consistency, that's the approach that makes the most sense. Nice, and I totally agree. > One could write: >> >> browser.runtime.onMessage.addListener(function(message) >> { >> if (message == "get-foo") >> { >> return browser.storage.local.get("foo").then(items => items.foo); >> } >> }); >> > > As it happens, this is exactly how it currently works in Firefox :) Awesome, hopefully that makes it also into the spec. SebastianReceived on Wednesday, 5 October 2016 20:58:06 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:10:00 UTC