- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 07:43:27 -0700
- To: Nathan Wall <nathan.wall@live.com>
- Cc: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>, "es-discuss@mozilla.org" <es-discuss@mozilla.org>, "www-dom@w3c.org" <www-dom@w3c.org>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Nathan Wall <nathan.wall@live.com> wrote: > Domenica Denicola wrote: >> Since there's no real advantage to the `PromiseResolver` approach, and there are a number of disadvantages, we were hoping to switch to the prevalent `(resolve, reject)` signature in the revised DOM promises spec. >> >> Let us know what you think! > > > One advantage to the `PromiseResolver` is that it's easier to pass around than two separate functions. Passing the resolver around isn't common, but at my workplace we've made use of it in a "requester" pattern. > > > function Requester() { > this.requests = Object.create(); > } > > Requester.prototype = { > respond: function(requestName, callback) { > this.requests[requestName] = callback; > }, > request: function(requestName, ...values) { > return new Promise(resolver => { > this.requests[requestName](resolver, ...values); > }); > } > }; Just change this to: this.requests[requestName]({resolve, reject}, ...values); Changing the argument signature has only a tiny, local effect on your code. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 30 August 2013 14:44:17 UTC