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

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Markus Lanthaler
<> wrote:
> After a short discussion with Robin we decided to use method overloading to
> have the "callback" parameter always last while still having an optional
> "options" parameter. We are aware of the fact this isn't allowed at the
> moment and already raised an issue for WebIDL [2].
> Boris Zbarsky already raised his concerns about this style as not being
> "platform consistent" [3].
> We also considered Futures but decided that introducing a normative
> dependency to the DOM spec is not acceptable at this stage.

Pardon my french, but:

Fuck. Dependencies.

Worrying about dependencies falls into the "technical purity" bucket,
and your ladder of constituencies is:

Technical Purity < Implementors < Authors < Users

(Actually, it probably falls more into the "Bureaucracy" bucket, which
sits even lower than technical purity.)

If there is a correct way to do things, but it would introduce a new
dependency, your job is to do the correct thing and then figure out
how to route around the bureaucracy.  Anything else is abandoning your
responsibility toward all the other constituencies.

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.


Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2013 23:56:07 UTC