- From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
- Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 13:27:45 -0400
- To: public-webrtc@w3.org
On 08/04/2013 12:11 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On 08/04/2013 17:56 , Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Randell
>> Jesup<randell-ietf@jesup.org> wrote:
>>> >I looked at some of the links mentioned, and while interesting I'm not
>>> >entire clear on how this would affect the real-world usage of
>>> application
>>> >writers; I'd want to see the impact on code they'd write, and
>>> evaluate how
>>> >much of existing code and examples could survive this change with
>>> minimal
>>> >mods or with mechanical rewrites. Also, I'd want to talk about how
>>> >coordinated support for futures is or would be among the major browser
>>> >vendors.
>> Basically:
>>
>> getUserMedia(options, accept, reject)
>>
>> becomes:
>>
>> getUserMedia(options).done(accept, reject)
>>
>> And:
>>
>> obj.takePhoto()
>> obj.onphoto = accept
>> obj.onphotoerror = reject
>>
>> becomes:
>>
>> obj.takePhoto().done(accept, reject)
>>
>> (It has still not been explained why these follow a distinct pattern.)
>
> Indeed. If this group insists on shipping with designs that have
> repeatedly been shown to be harmful and hated it's entirely its
> prerogative, but please at least stick to only one of the hurting
> approaches — not all of them at once!
>
> Consistency can help ease the degree of pain those of us who then have
> to code using these things have to put up with :)
>
Agreed :)
Gili
Received on Monday, 8 April 2013 17:28:26 UTC