W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > August 2014

Re: DAP-ISSUE-168: getBattery() vs. requestBattery() pattern [Battery Status API]

From: Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 08:47:14 +0000
To: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
CC: Device APIs Working Group <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-ID: <33FFE6B8-ADEE-43E8-9225-F4FDB8829EB4@intel.com>
On 08 Aug 2014, at 18:58, Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com> wrote:

> From: Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
> 
>> To address this part of Domenic’s feedback, however, I suggest we revise the following normative prose:
> 
> LGTM, thanks!

Landed:

https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/rev/6cb6dc26210d

>> Is a promise that cannot reject (IOW “the user agent MUST NOT reject the promise ...”) a bad practice to be avoided at all cost?
> 
> Nope, that's fine! It's just like a function that can never throw.

Makes sense, thanks for the confirmation.

Thanks,

-Anssi
Received on Monday, 11 August 2014 08:47:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:33:11 UTC