- From: David Dahl <ddahl@mozilla.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 11:48:35 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
- Cc: Wan-Teh Chang <wtc@google.com>, "public-webcrypto@w3.org Working Group" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ryan Sleevi" <sleevi@google.com> > To: "David Dahl" <ddahl@mozilla.com> > Cc: "Wan-Teh Chang" <wtc@google.com>, "public-webcrypto@w3.org Working Group" <public-webcrypto@w3.org> > Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 12:29:40 PM > Subject: Re: JS code examples for ACTION 43 > > On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:18 AM, David Dahl <ddahl@mozilla.com> > wrote: > > I see. Do we need to specify a new event? > > If we do decide not to support the "shotgun calling", then yes. As > mentioned very early on, .processData() may not ever result in output > - for example, when performing signature verification (which doesn't > happen until .complete()). Being able to shotgun repeated calls to > .processData() would be rather useful in that case. > > I would suggest rather than having onProgress, we'd rename it to some > event that is suitably ambiguous as to whether data resuled. > onProcessed() perhaps? > That sounds good. So, not only rename it but also specify that it is fired once the data is completely processed.
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2012 18:49:02 UTC