-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 3/4/2010 11:46 AM, Nikunj Mehta wrote: > > On Mar 4, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Kris Zyp wrote: > >> >> On 3/4/2010 11:08 AM, Aaron Boodman wrote: > [snip] >>> >>> * There is nothing preventing JS authors from implementing a >>> promise-style API on top of IndexedDB, if that is what they >>> want to do. >>> >> Yes, you can always make an API harder to use so that JS authors >> have more they can do with it ;). > > You will agree that we don't want to wait for one style of > promises to win out over others before IndexedDB can be made > available to programmers. Till the soil and let a thousand flowers > bloom. The IndexedDB spec isn't and can't just sit back and not define the asynchronous interface. Like it or not, IndexedDB has defined a promise-like entity with the |DBRequest| interface. Why is inventing a new (and somewhat ugly) flower better than designing based on the many flowers that have already bloomed? - -- Kris Zyp SitePen (503) 806-1841 http://sitepen.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkuQAiUACgkQ9VpNnHc4zAzZkgCeIjAVz56S3sR5BeKt8lZPGMJo 6rYAoJ4x4WJN9W9LhdXkbbJaT94A8/om =oJbA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 4 March 2010 18:58:07 UTC