Re: Strawman Promises consensus position, based on Thursday's telechat

I can live with it. 



> On Oct 3, 2014, at 05:00, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
> 
> <<At the end of Thursday's telechat, there was still no smooth consensus of the TF detected.
> 
> However, there was a position proposed that might serve as something people could live with.
> I've tried to capture it below; I'd like people on the list to reply with one of:
> 
> "I can live with it"
> "I cannot live with it"
> 
> This is done in order to get a sense of the group - I have a feel, but want it verified.
> I'm sure there will be other comments. Bring them on.
> 
> --------------
>  On
>           the promises, the following is the strawman consensus
>           position:
> 
> In
>           the version of getusermedia that gets sent out for Last Call,
>           we make the following changes:
> 
> navigator.mediaDevices.getUserMedia
>               gets changed to return a promise.
> applyConstraint
>               returns a promise.
> enumerateDevices
>               returns a promise.
> navigator.getUserMedia
>               has callbacks
> We
>               do not re-discuss whether or not to remove
>               navigator.getUserMedia from the spec in the foreseeable
>               future (2 years?)
> 
> <<< note: I'm not sure if the next piece belongs or not. It serves to make the definition complete,
> and was certainly described in Jan-Ivar's slides. Comments welcome. >>>
> 
>  The
>           definition of navigator.getUserMedia in the spec will be that
>           it will behave exactly like:
> 
> navigator.prototype.getUserMedia
>           = function(constraints, success, failure) {
> 
>         
>             var p = navigator.mediaDevices.getUserMedia(constraints);
> 
>         
>             p.then(success, failure);
> 
>         }
> 
> -------------
> 
> Fire away!
>