Re: Promises (Re: New Editor's Draft of MediaStream Image Capture)

On 10 September 2014 00:10, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
> I'm not in favor of this change. As we discussed in DC, the idea is to get
> finished with 1.0 and this doesn't seem like a change that contributes to
> that.

I think that even in DC it wasn't clear that promises were stable
enough to use.  Since then, we're shipping code that uses them in lots
of places.  I seriously doubt that the 1.0 schedule would be badly
affected by having a bunch of new promise-based functions (overloads
or not) defined.  It would also allow us to build new additions to the
API that didn't require callbacks.

Having now used promises for some time, I can definitely say that they
are worth the small effort this will take.  Promises make use of the
API so much easier that I think we'll find polyfill appearing even if
we don't define it.  It's not that hard to define something that would
be consistent.

I'd encourage Jan-Ivar to actually produce a complete list of changes
though, so we can assess the impact.  Maybe even a pull request.

Received on Thursday, 11 September 2014 02:36:12 UTC