- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 16:46:37 -0700
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, "Web Applications Working Group WG (public-webapps@w3.org)" <public-webapps@w3.org>, "ifette@google.com" <ifette@google.com>, "simonp@opera.com" <simonp@opera.com>, "art.barstow@nokia.com" <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > On Thu, 7 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> > 12816 - Make second argument in constructor an object for future extensibility >> >> I'd like to see this change made too. >> >> So far there's been two counter proposals in the bug for how to deal >> with future extensions (which I strongly suspect we'll end up having >> to do in the future): >> 1. Wait to open the connection until returning to the event loop which >> delays starting the already slow network handshake. This is especially >> a problem in Web Workers where returning to the event loop can take a >> very long time. >> 2. Make the second argument either be a string, a array of strings, or >> a object. This is messy both from a user perspective and from an >> implementation perspective. > > This really seems to me like a premature optimisation. We shouldn't be > fixing problems we don't already have, _especially_ if doing so > complicates the platform (as it does here). On the other hand, we should do things now that are likely to create a more complicated or inconsistent platform in the future. It's a judgement call. I think we're just making different judgements on how likely it is that we'll need to extend this in the future. / Jonas
Received on Friday, 8 July 2011 23:47:43 UTC