>
> 3) Promises instead of continuation-passing style for non-blocking APIs.
> Does it make sense? Is it the future? How would it look like?
>
In case it's not clear how this is a problem... most of our
blocking/non-blocking hybrid methods take an optional CODE reference as
last argument for switching between modes.
# Blocking
my $tx = $ua->get('mojolicio.us');
# Non-blocking
$ua->get('mojolicio.us' => sub {
my ($ua, $tx) = @_;
});
So there is not much room in the API for passing around promises, and they
would most likely need their own methods.
# Blocking
my $tx = $ua->get('mojolicio.us');
# Non-blocking
$ua->aget('mojolicio.us')->then(sub {
my $tx = shift;
});
Another interesting question is where this would leave modules like
Mojo::EventEmitter and callbacks that get invoked multiple times, Perl6 has
this interesting concept of "Supplies".
(http://perlcabal.org/syn/S17.html#Supplies)
$ua->on('error')->tap(sub {
my $err = shift;
});
Mojo::IOLoop->listen(port => 3000)->tap(sub {
my $stream = shift;
});
Perl6 uses Promises very extensively, so this is going to be an important
topic for a Mojolicious port too.
(http://perlcabal.org/syn/S17.html#Promises)
--
sebastian
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Mojolicious" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mojolicious.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
