- 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