Anne, Mark, and I are working through the details on revising DOM promises to
match the updated AP2 consensus we've developed over these many es-discuss
promise threads. There is one change we were hoping to make from the DOM
promises spec that has not been discussed before, so we wanted to run it by the
list to make sure there were no objections.
All existing promise implementations that use the constructor pattern, e.g. Q,
WinJS, YUI, RSVP, when, then/promise, and others, give the constructor
arguments as `new Promise((resolve, reject) => ...)`. This was codified in [a
Promises/A+ strawman][1] which has met with wide agreement among the
implementer community.
The current DOM promises draft gives the constructor arguments as `new
Promise(resolver => ...)` where `resolver` is an instance of the
`PromiseResolver` class and has `resolve`, `reject`, and `fulfill` methods.
With the AP2 changes, `fulfill` no longer is necessary (you will use
`Promise.of` for that use case), so this would be reduced to `resolve` and
`reject` methods. Note that `PromiseResolver` is a full-fledged constructor
with its own prototype, and the `resolve` and `reject` methods are actually
methods, i.e. can't be extracted without binding, so in particular using
destructuring syntax like `new Promise(({ resolve, reject }) => ...)` will not
work.
Since there's no real advantage to the `PromiseResolver` approach, and there
are a number of disadvantages, we were hoping to switch to the prevalent
`(resolve, reject)` signature in the revised DOM promises spec.
Let us know what you think!
[1]: https://github.com/promises-aplus/resolvers-spec/issues/18
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
