On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Bill Frantz <frantz@pwpconsult.com> wrote: > 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. Ah, I'm not proposing that we augment the base Future class with cancellation properties. I explicitly used the term "subtype" in the quoted bit above. *Some* of Ron's suggestions were to augment the base Future class, but not all of them, and several other people pushed back on that. ~TJReceived on Wednesday, 1 May 2013 20:38:19 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:13 UTC