- From: Mark Foltz via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 06:06:33 +0000
- To: public-secondscreen@w3.org
@mounirlamouri:
> I would be in favour of not automatically close and let the web page
make that decision.
We would need to add a means for the page to terminate its session
(but not the underlying presentation), i.e. a
`PresentationSession.disconnect()` method.
> Regarding promise vs. event, I would prefer using a promise because
it makes it clearer the error is about the message sending and it
allows different error handling depending on the send() call.
This makes the code for sending multiple messages in sequence feel odd
and less performant:
```
var s = theSession;
s.send("first-message").then(s.send("second-message"),
disconnectSession(s)).then(
```
In this code, the second message can't be queued until delivery of the
first message succeeds. This also means a separate event loop/task
for each message in a sequence. Perhaps we could rewrite the `send`
API to take sequences of messages? But would that negate the proposed
advantage of having one Promise per message?
Or what would happen if:
```
session.send("first-message");
session.send("second-message");
```
Would these messages get sent if no resolver is provided?
---
Idea: as suggested, would an exception attached to send() be better
than an `error` event? That way the caller knows which invocations of
`send()` failed and we don't have to provide message details in the
event.
--
GitHub Notif of comment by mfoltzgoogle
See
https://github.com/w3c/presentation-api/issues/149#issuecomment-125460997
Received on Tuesday, 28 July 2015 06:06:35 UTC