Hi,
Implementation of back pressure is important for handling large data
stably. The Streams need to ask the consumer code to notify it when it can
consume more data. Triggering this signal by method invocation is one of
possible options. Promises fit this well.
To address smaug___'s concern, we
On 12/04/2013 06:27 PM, Feras Moussa wrote:
The editors of the Streams API have reached a milestone where we feel many of
the major issues that have been identified thus far are now resolved and
incorporated in the editors draft.
The editors draft [1] has been heavily updated and reviewed the
Thanks. ByteStream is already partially implemented in Blink/Chromium. As
one of implementors, I'll continue prototyping and share issues here.
I haven't got time for, but writing some polyfill might be also good thing
to do.
Takeshi
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 2:38 AM, Kenneth Russell
...@domenicdenicola.com;
vitteayme...@gmail.com
CC: public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: Request for feedback: Streams API
Thanks for the update Feras.
Re getting `wide review` of the latest [ED], which groups, lists and
individuals should be asked to review the spec?
In IRC just now, jgraham mentioned TC39
On 12/4/13 3:53 PM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Thursday, December 5, 2013 at 3:57 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Thanks for the update Feras.
Re getting `wide review` of the latest [ED], which groups, lists and
individuals should be asked to review the spec?
In IRC just now, jgraham
Looks great! Seems very well thought through.
The API seems large enough that it would be worth prototyping it and
writing test applications to make sure it addresses key use cases
before finalizing the spec.
-Ken
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Feras Moussa feras.mou...@hotmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the update Feras.
Re getting `wide review` of the latest [ED], which groups, lists and
individuals should be asked to review the spec?
In IRC just now, jgraham mentioned TC39, WHATWG and Domenic. Would
someone please ask these two groups to review the latest ED?
Aymeric - would
On Thursday, December 5, 2013 at 3:57 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Thanks for the update Feras.
Re getting `wide review` of the latest [ED], which groups, lists and
individuals should be asked to review the spec?
In IRC just now, jgraham mentioned TC39, WHATWG and Domenic. Would
: art.bars...@nokia.com
To: feras.mou...@hotmail.com; dome...@domenicdenicola.com;
vitteayme...@gmail.com
CC: public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: Request for feedback: Streams API
Thanks for the update Feras.
Re getting `wide review` of the latest [ED], which groups, lists and
individuals
