On Apr 24, 2013 2:45 AM, "Aymeric Vitte" <vitteaymeric@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Le 24/04/2013 01:28, Ryan Sleevi a écrit : > >> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Aymeric Vitte <vitteaymeric@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Le 23/04/2013 19:50, Ryan Sleevi a écrit : >>> >>>> A sample reworking of the WD is at >>>> >>>> https://github.com/slightlyoff/DOMFuture/blob/master/reworked_APIs/WebCrytpo/after.idl >>> >>> Why the code examples at the end are not updated with the Future style? >>> > I saw Alex's answer about updating the examples, this would help to understand how this works now. > >> The above IDL is not a formal update to the spec - that is still >> pending. It was just a sample. >> >>> Could Futures solve ISSUE-22? >>> >>> Regards, >>> >> The WG reached consensus to close ISSUE-22 and take no further action >> in the spec on our last conference call. > > > Then the WG is going to close something for which there are real use cases and living examples... > > I am not very familiar with Futures but I was wondering if a process Future could not continue to be chained after you have invoked a finish Future, this would simply solve ISSUE-22. > > > Regards, > > -- > jCore > Email : avitte@jcore.fr > iAnonym : http://www.ianonym.com > node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor > GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms > Web : www.jcore.fr > Webble : www.webble.it > Extract Widget Mobile : www.extractwidget.com > BlimpMe! : www.blimpme.com > Aymeric - you are not going to find what you're asking for as a side effect of something else. It will need to. E specced. And the WG has reached consensus not to spec this for this version of the API. Which is to directly answer your question and say "No, it will not. It has no relationship whatsoever to ISSUE-22."
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2013 10:20:20 UTC