W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > July 2014

Re: [whatwg] Questions about the Fetch API

From: Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 17:24:55 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJ5xic_Ghaui9GN3XJgz_EapBg++CdukUOgQh8uqWRsrOykqAA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
Cc: "whatwg@lists.whatwg.org" <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Juan Ignacio Dopazo <jdopazo@yahoo-inc.com>
On 14 July 2014 17:17, Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com> wrote:

> From: Juan Ignacio Dopazo <jdopazo@yahoo-inc.com>
>
> > I agree that Node's design sounds a bit better for piping. But where
> would you put the FetchResponseBodyStream? fetch() returns a promise for a
> Response. Why would the response have a writable stream for the request?
> There are two options:
> >
> > 1- Have fetch() return a promise for an object with "request" and
> "response" properties
> > 2- Have fetch() return something that is not a promise
>
> 3- have fetch() take a writable stream as a parameter, e.g.
>
> var request = new Request("http://example.com", { method: "POST" });
> myReadableStream.pipeTo(request.body);
> fetch(request);
>
> (this is not great ergonomically, but seems to be the direction the
> current API points to...)


The current API is

var request = new Request("http://example.com", {
  method: "POST",
  body: myReadableStream
});
Received on Monday, 14 July 2014 16:25:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:21 UTC