- From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2014 09:57:56 -0400
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Andrew Wilson <atwilson@google.com>, WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>, Peter Beverloo <beverloo@google.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
On Oct 5, 2014 7:41 AM, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Domenic Denicola > <domenic@domenicdenicola.com> wrote: > > So we should make a choice, as to whether we want developers to assume they will always get permission (in which case it should reject upon permission not being granted), or whether we want developers to ask the API whether they were granted permission (in which case it should give back a boolean fulfillment value or similar). > > How can they assume permission is always granted? It's up the user. > It's a request from the developer and the user can say no. What's > unclear about the name? > I think Domenic is saying "do we want to give the impression that you code the happy path only in the then(), or do we assume you are asking an async question for which an async answer is given with information for you to disambiguate in the then() regardless of whether this is happy or not. I originally expected denial to throw, I admit, but this is mainly because it was guessing on an unestablished pattern. If we establish something which can be applied widely, most of that is mitigated. I think the later (async question that always answers in .then()) makes much more sense especially given that https://notifications.spec.whatwg.org has 3 such values (accepted, denied, default) - if there is algebra to be done we can experiment with some good patterns inside .then() to make that easier. > > -- > https://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Sunday, 5 October 2014 13:58:21 UTC