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

On 06/10/2014 12:00 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
> On 10/6/14 10:56, cowwoc wrote:
>> Okay, but unprefixing does not happen on its own. A developer needs 
>> to manually change the application code to make it happen.
>
> No, they don't.
>
> They don't.
>
> They DO NOT, and that's my point. Look very closely at this statement, 
> which you find all over the web:
>
> navigator.getUserMedia = navigator.getUserMedia || 
> navigator.webkitGetUserMedia || navigator.mozGetUserMedia;
>
> Right now, if you run this in Chrome, you get their prefixed 
> implementation of gUM.
>
> If you run this in Firefox, you get our prefixed implementation of gUM.
>
> If Firefox unprefixes gUM, and instead has a "navigator.getUserMedia", 
> then you get *that* unprefixed version.
>
> The same is true for Chrome.
>
> Application code continues to work, and gUM is no longer behind a prefix.

Fine, what about Jake's second proposal?

> Dropping navigator.getUserMedia & keeping the prefixed versions as 
> (c,s,f) => navigator.mediaDevices.getUserMedia(c).then(s, f) will also 
> seamlessly work, and doesn't result in shipping callbacks despite (or, 
> to spite?) promises.


Gili