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 https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-region/issues/17#issuecomment-1062136325 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

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