Re: [mediacapture-region] What makes CropTarget special to require an asynchronous creation? (#17)

> > IPC with multiple processes is neither simple, nor performant, nor robust. The cost to implementers is greatly reduced when avoiding this.
> This is a known problem that is solved in modern browsers. A transferred WritableStream should not do multiple IPCes to locate the process of its sink when writing new values. As I said before, I'd like to understand why it would be more difficult with CropTarget than with all these other existing APIs.

I believe I have explained why we have implemented things this way in Chrome. This is a real issue.

> > What's the downside to any other constituency?
> It is more costly to both web developers and web engines. It is not consistent with existing Web APIs AFAIK.

The cost to Web developers is negligible. Crop-target production is a rare occurrence, it does not matter to the Web developer if it complete asynchronously. I can pull in Web-developers currently using Region Capture (in origin trial) for major products with a high level of polish, and they could comment as much. Would you find that convincing? (If not - please pull in a similarly qualified Web developer who could comment to the contrary.)

> Given this is a solved problem for other APIs and given these solutions are applicable to CropTarget as well, can we converge on moving away from Promises?

Let's converge **towards** Promises, given that it's an important implementation issue for Chrome. (And I believe that when the time comes for Safari and Firefox to implement this, they'll find it equally problematic.)

GitHub Notification of comment by eladalon1983
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in

Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2022 19:41:32 UTC