- From: Rottsches, Dominik <dominik.rottsches@intel.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 08:35:30 +0000
- To: "jonas@sicking.cc" <jonas@sicking.cc>
- CC: "public-webscreens@w3.org" <public-webscreens@w3.org>, "avayvod@google.com" <avayvod@google.com>, "mfoltz@google.com" <mfoltz@google.com>, "Kostiainen, Anssi" <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>, "ehung@mozilla.com" <ehung@mozilla.com>, "wjohnston@mozilla.com" <wjohnston@mozilla.com>, "mchen@mozilla.com" <mchen@mozilla.com>
Hi Jonas, thanks for taking the time and your explanations. Sounds reasonable to me. > But these things are clearly just matter of taste. Both solutions are > technically equivalent and just differ in syntax. I.e. writing a > wrapper that converts in either direction is pretty easy. So I > definitely understand if other people come to different conclusions > than me. > > And I'm somewhat biased since I've been beat over the head in the past > for creating APIs that relied too heavily on Events rather than used > Promises. Alright, we should learn from your experience. > Another thing that might throw a wrench in this is that TC39 is > looking at observervables. That might very well change which approach > makes for most convenient code. Could you elaborate a bit here where you see implications for our API design? > What ultimately matters here is which solution makes for the most > convenient code. We should ask developers and people that are more > used to state of the art JS API design (i.e. library authors) what > they think. I'm happy to take an action item to do that. If you could get some feedback from such developers within a short time frame, that would certainly be useful, so that we can incorporate that and close the issue. Thanks, Dominik
Received on Monday, 13 October 2014 08:36:10 UTC