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

This is a long old thread by now, but to throw my 2 cents in, I think morphing a promise into a control object is a terrible semantic idea in any incarnation. Today a promise can be passed around to several functions without granting control to any of them. Nevermind that any function acting on said control might affect all the other ones (action-at-a-distance). Control has to live upstream in the tree, and it's not for the recipient of a promise to break, resolve or reject it. As tempting as it may seem to overload the lone returned object, this only seems beneficial in the most naive uses where the initiator and the consumer are the same, and wont work for much else. It'll also complicate wrapping and libraries to no end. Control is an input, a promise is an output. Controller pattern for the win.

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/fetch/issues/27#issuecomment-96706917