2016-09-13 15:59 GMT+02:00 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri <barbi...@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Felipe Magno de Almeida > <felipe.m.alme...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sep 13, 2016 5:49 AM, <marcel-hollerb...@t-online.de> wrote: > >> > > > > [snip] > > > >> There could be a helper method which does the "fetch the loop and create > >> the job" stuff. > >> > >> But with the feature of multiple efl loops in one process you have to > >> decide on which loop to run the timer, i dont really see how you can get > >> arround deciding that ... > > > > If we lived without one for so long we probably can have a default one. > > not just that, but maybe all loop-users could provide loop functions > themselves, so if I have a elm_window or an efl_net/efl_io that uses > the loop I could do o.timer_add(seconds) -> timer_obj, it would do > the loop_get + efl_add() + set interval. > > same for job, etc. > > also, why job is a promise while timer is not? this is confusing, > should offer timer/idle_enter/idle_exiter/idler as a promise as well, > no? > This is one of the issue that make me don't like promise! Currently you are implementing promise only for async stuff that have a single completion callback, so ecore_timeout is a promise while ecore_timer don't. This is highly confusing, timer and timeout are quite the same and they should use the same API. If we are searching for a unified way to handle async stuff we really should have ALL our async stuff to use the same system. > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------------ > _______________________________________________ > enlightenment-devel mailing list > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
