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

Re: Future cancellation

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 17:06:48 +0200
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Message-ID: <oeb2o8d0njs3uhvj19g8dn7sf9et73m5k0@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
* Jonas Sicking wrote:
>Then there's of course the issue of what we should do with APIs that
>combine several Futures into a single one. Like Future.every() etc.
>Similarly, there's also the issue of what to do with chaining.
>I'm tempted to say that if you create combined or dependent Futures,
>you still only have the ability to cancel them through the original

And the "progress" of multiple "Futures" can only be observed through
the individual "ProgressFuture" objects? I would expect the opposite.
Similarily, I would expect to be able to mix "ProgressFuture" objects
with other "Future" objects, and still be able to observe "progress"
of the combination. And if I can do that, I would also expect that I
can turn a single "Future" into a "ProgressFuture" in this sense, but
then the whole "subclassing" idea kinda breaks down, why bother with
that. And "cancelation" does not seem quite so different from "pro-
gress" in this sense.
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Wednesday, 1 May 2013 15:07:16 UTC

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