- From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
- Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 23:02:44 -0400
- To: public-webrtc@w3.org
- Message-ID: <51A96454.5080501@bbs.darktech.org>
Justin, if you end up using DOM Futures this becomes a point of consistency :) Meaning, I don't think it would be so bad if all methods returned a Future. Gili On 31/05/2013 8:04 PM, Justin Uberti wrote: > Was a decision reached here? It seems unfortunate to have to add > success/failure callbacks to several methods just to better handle > being called in the "closed" state. > > > On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Martin Thomson > <martin.thomson@gmail.com <mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com>> wrote: > > On 27 May 2013 05:31, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no > <mailto:harald@alvestrand.no>> wrote: > > The language you're proposing sounds as if we'll violate that > property if > > the connection is closed after the call returns normally, but > before the > > task is dequeued. > > Closing a closed object is an operation that can only succeed. > > No checks beforehand, just enqueue the operation and if the object is > already closed...whee, noop. > > Given that closed is a terminal state, this is indistinguishable in > all respects from an implementation where the callback is virtually > synchronous (just move the invocation of callback to after reaching > stable state). > >
Received on Saturday, 1 June 2013 03:04:06 UTC