W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: Future cancellation

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 12:16:50 +0100
Message-ID: <CADnb78gY1t2pDodJDaAd0h04GzVvxpKfe+6GwWqSMq6bT525TQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Ron Buckton <rbuckton@chronicles.org>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com> wrote:
> This is what I've sketched in various places, including for Anne WRT XHR. I
> suppose (without any cause) that folks would pick up on the idea that the
> minimal Future superclass was being explicitly designed to be subclassable
> to address issues like this and progress notification. Perhaps we need to
> call it out more explicitly in the spec?

The specification does need to address that better, in particular what
then() and catch() might return for subclassed futures. We found use
cases both for returning a new instance of the subclassed future
itself (ProgressFuture) and simply returning a new "base" future (for
the crypto APIs).

I think we want to define some of the common ones directly in the
specification. That will a) help people designing their own and b)
encourage some level of consistency.

Received on Wednesday, 1 May 2013 11:17:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:13 UTC