- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 11:17:03 +0000
- To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Cc: Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>, public-sysapps@w3.org, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote: > It would still really suck if you added .then() but still required everything to be wrapped in a function. What do you mean by this? >> A promise object in the Web Platform seems to be something that >> everybody wants but it is not clear that having it added in the DOM is >> the best way to do it. >> Having a Future object in Javascript would very >> likely be better and last I've heard, Alex's plans were to push for >> DOMFuture and for a Future object in Javascript. > > Alex?... Anne? … Bueller? The plan is to have at least a subset in JavaScript. That would also allow some more meaningful interfaces (e.g. Future<Blob>). I don't think it really matters much where we define this though, we just need to agree on the specifics and move on. > We shouldn't continue to propagate this design from one API when we have others that do > async stuff better (e.g., XHR, even Geolocation's callbacks). I think Future gives a much better API for both of those. Future is great for any kind of async yes/no API. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2013 11:17:38 UTC