- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 10:01:40 +0200
- To: public-webrtc@w3.org
On 04/14/2014 12:17 AM, Martin Thomson wrote: > Async is good. Note that for cases where close() is called multiple > times, subsequent calls can either enqueue and no-op later, or check > if close() is already enqueued and exit out. +1 for async. If there's no callback on close(), but only an event dispatched on the state change, I think the two approaches above are indistinguishable from the API, so it doesn't matter which is chosen as the way it's described. > > On 12 April 2014 11:56, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com> wrote: >> On Apr 11, 2014, at 1:44 PM, Nils Ohlmeier <nohlmeier@mozilla.com> wrote: >> >>> I'm in favor adding clarification that close() is async >> +1 >> >> -- Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.
Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2014 08:02:13 UTC