W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > April 2013

Re: Futures (was: Request for JSON-LD API review)

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 08:45:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDC+3Fe+BBB0ZEQVMJdn++uXjPqw=QftVB=D5jSwnHEMNg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Norbert Lindenberg <w3@norbertlindenberg.com>
Cc: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, public-rdf-comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Norbert Lindenberg
<w3@norbertlindenberg.com> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 2013, at 16:55 , Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Markus Lanthaler
>> <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:
>>> After a short discussion with Robin we decided to use method overloading to
>>> We also considered Futures but decided that introducing a normative
>>> dependency to the DOM spec is not acceptable at this stage.
>> In this case, your API is a textbook example of Futures.  You have an
>> async call which returns a single value, or an error.  You can't get
>> much more perfect than that.
> Maybe Futures should be in a separate spec? They don't seem to have any dependencies on DOM, and having them separate would reduce the bureaucratic hurdles for non-DOM specs to refer to them. Maybe eventually they could migrate into the ECMAScript standard library (currently known as ES chapter 15).

I suspect that baking them into JS would be a great final destination.
 In the meantime, though, that doesn't help the stated bureaucratic
hurdles, because a separate "Futures" spec will be exactly as
standards-track-advanced as the current DOM spec.

Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2013 15:45:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:59:32 UTC