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 :) GiliReceived on Monday, 8 April 2013 17:28:26 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:17:42 UTC