- From: Bill Frantz <frantz@pwpconsult.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 13:29:18 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- cc: Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.com>, public-script-coord@w3.org, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
On 5/1/13 at 11:13 AM, jackalmage@gmail.com (Tab Atkins Jr.) wrote: >I think you're making this far too complicated. It's much simpler than this: > >1. XHR is a very reasonable API to Future-ize. >2. XHRs are cancellable. >3. Ergo, we should have a cancellable Future subtype. Why make it more complex than necessary. While a XHR implementation may wish to add a cancel operation, JS is a broader language than just the web. There are use cases that don't need cancel and they should not have to pay the costs of the additional communication paths that cancel will require. With a simple promise, others can build objects which use the promise as an internal component and provide cancel or other useful operations. Leaving the implementations of these other operations to libraries will allow experimentation to proceed standardization. Cheers - Bill ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Since the IBM Selectric, keyboards have gotten 408-356-8506 | steadily worse. Now we have touchscreen keyboards. www.pwpconsult.com | Can we make something even worse?
Received on Wednesday, 1 May 2013 20:29:46 UTC