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

Re: Future cancellation

From: Kevin Smith <zenparsing@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 09:39:20 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+mDt2xTWw+iNtoWp0zKmShT7kKc7b3u2mwSXg2PrbXDybupxQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Cc: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
> 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 this difficulty points to a deeper issue with attempting to make a
promise something other than a placeholder for a value.  Namely: it's no
longer obvious how the information or abilities stored in the promise
itself should propagate through the graph.  The featureless-ness of
promises is one of their most important features.

{ Kevin }
Received on Wednesday, 1 May 2013 13:39:47 UTC

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