Re: Mutation events replacement

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Rafael Weinstein <> wrote:
>> So yes, my proposal only solves the usecase outside mutation handlers.
>> However this is arguably better than never solving the use case as in
>> your proposal. I'm sure people will end up writing buggy code, but
>> ideally this will be found and fixed fairly easily as the behavior is
>> consistent. We are at least giving people the tools needed to
>> implement the synchronous behavior.
> Ok. Thanks for clarifying. It's helpful to understand this.
> I'm glad there's mostly common ground on the larger issue. The point
> of contention is clearly whether accommodating some form of sync
> mutation actions is a goal or non-goal.

Yup, that seems to be the case.

I think the main reason I'm arguing for allowing synchronous callbacks
is that I'm concerned that without them people are going to stick to
mutation events. If I was designing this feature from scratch, I'd be
much happier to use some sort of async callback. However given that we
need something that people can migrate to, and we don't really know
what they're using mutation events for, I'm more conservative.

/ Jonas

Received on Friday, 8 July 2011 01:39:21 UTC