Re: [fetch] Aborting a fetch (#27)

I wonder if there's any progress on this.

I also would like to bring to your attention that even Dougla Crockford somehow ditched Promises in favor of cancelability:

 > This pattern is so problematic that some of its users have denounced asynchronicity, declaring that it is unnatural and impossible to manage. But it turns out that the problem isn't with asynchronicity. The problem is trying to do asynchronicity without proper tools. There are lots of tools available now, including promises.
> There are many good things that can be done with promises, but promises were not designed to help manage workflows in servers.
> 
> That is specifically what RQ was designed to do. Asynchronicity is our friend. We should not attempt to hide it or deny it. We must embrace asynchronicity because it is our destiny. RQ gives you the simple tools you need to do that.

What DC is proposing is something similar to my proposal: an optional way to specify cancelability of an asynchronous *contract*.

If I ask a friend to do me a favor, but it takes long time and I don't need it anymore, I'd like to know my friend is capable of dealing with me changing mine: it was me asking him to promise something, if I say "you know what? I don't need it anymore" I'm pretty sure he'll drop the task and do something else.

Please let us know if anything is changing or moving at all, this is also a very important point of my book and I'm sort of stuck because I don't want to go out with an already updated chapter if anything changes in here at all.

Thanks for helping out and best regards.

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/fetch/issues/27#issuecomment-92905683