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

On 10/7/14, 10:40 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:43 PM, Adam Roach <> wrote:
>> What you're seeing people push back against is a wholesale deprecation of an
>> API that's been around in two independent implementations (three, if you go
>> back to when Opera had its own implementation) for on the order of two
>> years, and which has seen pretty broad adoption by webdevs. Some of us don't
>> want to break existing deployed applications. Others don't seem to think
>> that this is important. That's the crux of the disagreement.
> I don't think that's true. Deprecating something does not mean
> breaking deployed applications. At least not immediately. We could
> definitely continue to support the callback-based methods for some
> period to come, while at the same warning developers that they should
> switch to the One True Way of doing things going forward. That warning
> could be place for two years for all I care.
> What I objected to is the proposed ultimatum that we add promises, but
> we cannot even encourage developers to switch to that version of the
> API for a minimum period of another two (or three?) years.

I second that this seems odd, especially since "the wholesale 
deprecation" happened back in spring when we moved to 
mediaDevices.getUserMedia. I don't remember there being any talk of 
warnings being verboten at the time.

The spec already uses the word "legacy" when describing the interface on 
navigator - does "legacy" not imply "deprecated"?

.: Jan-Ivar :.

Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2014 15:00:36 UTC