Re: [web-nfc] Consider removing .nfc namespace

One correction to the above: in native, multiple adapters likely won't
 actually work in the same time and we will get errors from all of 
them, which is a clean situation: we reject the push Promise. The 
question is the following: can some of them succeed and some of them 
fail, because that is the main problem in resolving or rejecting the 
push Promise.

If we choose option 3 and reject on any error, it can be misleading, 
since some of the writes might have happened, and while we report 
error, we have already changed the data on some of the tags, so we 
lied. Option 2 is the reverse: we report success, whereas some of the 
writes didn't happen.

While you can say we don't care about that case because it is 
unlikely, that is to say we don't care if the algorithm is correct, I 
think it would be better then to expose only one adapter at any given 
time.

It is true this would limit read functionality, and add more things to
 implement (priority list policy).

If someone can formulate reasonably correct push steps, I would be 
fine with the parallel adapters idea as well. But we need to make a 
choice, and soon.

-- 
GitHub Notif of comment by zolkis
See https://github.com/w3c/web-nfc/issues/67#issuecomment-151800439

Received on Wednesday, 28 October 2015 10:59:32 UTC