- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 01:20:49 -0700
- To: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
- Cc: Isaac Schlueter <i@izs.me>, Austin William Wright <aaa@bzfx.net>, Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 7:36 PM, Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com> wrote: > Another way of looking at it, is that a streaming API is itself incremental and cancellable. It makes no sense to say that each read from or write to the stream is *also* incremental and cancellable; why introduce another layer of entirely-unnecessary depth before you reach the atomic level of non-incremental, non-cancellable reads/writes? What use case does that serve? I'm pretty sold on the argument that making individual reads cancellable is a bad idea. But note that the original proposal does not make individual reads incremental. Progress events is not the same thing as incremental. I really think talking about progress notifications being or not being is focusing on the wrong questions. Nothing would substantially change if we made the original proposal return Promises rather than ProgressPromises. / Jonas
Received on Thursday, 22 August 2013 08:21:52 UTC