Please don't top-post.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
silviapfeiff...@gmail.com wrote:
Promises are new to browsers and people who have used them before have
raised issues about the extra resources they require. It may be a
non-issue in the browser, but it's still something
Promises are new to browsers and people who have used them before have
raised issues about the extra resources they require. It may be a
non-issue in the browser, but it's still something we should be wary
of.
Would it be possible for the first browser that implements this to
have both
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, Justin Novosad wrote:
I was about to launch the implementation of window.createImageBitmap in
Blink, and I received feedback on the blink-dev mailing list that the
Promise API is the wave of the future for asynchronous JS, and that
the new createImageBitmap method
On 18 Jul 2013 07:08, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, Justin Novosad wrote:
I was about to launch the implementation of window.createImageBitmap in
Blink, and I received feedback on the blink-dev mailing list that the
Promise API is the wave of the future for
On Thu, 18 Jul 2013, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
There are basically two styles:
- constructors (new Date(), new Function(), etc)
- factory methods on the parent object (document.createElement(),
implementation.createDocument(), context.createLinearGradient(), etc)
Do we have a
On 18 Jul 2013 07:57, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jul 2013, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
There are basically two styles:
- constructors (new Date(), new Function(), etc)
- factory methods on the parent object (document.createElement(),
On Thu, 18 Jul 2013, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
In this case you did remove the non-promise based approach - presumably
because it has not been implemented in browsers yet, which is fair
enough for browsers.
Right.
However, for JS developers it means that if they want to use this
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
silviapfeiff...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess I'm asking for JS dev input here...
FWIW, the feedback I've heard from JS devs is a touchingly agreement
about how much create* functions suck.
/ Jonas
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jul 2013, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
At the same time, I think we should follow a clear pattern for
introducing a Promise based API, which the .create() approach would
provide.
I don't understand what that means.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Justin Novosad wrote:
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jul 2013, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
At the same time, I think we should follow a clear pattern for
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
silviapfeiff...@gmail.com wrote:
It may well be that Promises are the right way to go for
createImageBitmap(), but we are blazing a new trail here and need to
be careful about the implications. For example, here is an interesting
discussion
On Thu, 18 Jul 2013, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
We have the same issues with WebRTC, which already has a callback based
API, but there is a suggestion to replace/augment with a Promise based
API, so I just wanted to understand the motivation, potential
complications and implications.
This is exactly what I was thinking when I was reading this. I have been
building a game engine with async JS and I have run into situations
where promises were absolutely sapping performance.
I would encourage people to look over even the faster promise libraries
and understand just how much
On Jul 17, 2013 8:40 PM, Ruben Rodriguez II wha...@therealcha0s.net
wrote:
This is exactly what I was thinking when I was reading this. I have been
building a game engine with async JS and I have run into situations where
promises were absolutely sapping performance.
I would encourage people
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jul 2013, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
We have the same issues with WebRTC, which already has a callback based
API, but there is a suggestion to replace/augment with a Promise based
API, so I just wanted to understand the
I think all I would say with regards to implementing promises is that it's
too early. Primarily for these reasons:
- The developer community (primarily JS) is still debating the semantics of
promises. There is the promises a+ spec (
http://promises-aplus.github.io/promises-spec/) which has
On 07/17/2013 07:51 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Jul 17, 2013 8:40 PM, Ruben Rodriguez II wha...@therealcha0s.net
wrote:
This is exactly what I was thinking when I was reading this. I have been
building a game engine with async JS and I have run into situations where
promises were absolutely
On Jul 17, 2013 9:00 PM, Ruben Rodriguez II wha...@therealcha0s.net
wrote:
On 07/17/2013 07:51 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Jul 17, 2013 8:40 PM, Ruben Rodriguez II
It'll take 1 day to wrap
your API with a promise-based API for people who would make that
tradeoff.
If you sacrifice speed
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nlwrote:
I think something like
interface ImageBitmap {
static Promise create(ImageBitmapSource image, optional long sx,
long sy, long sw, long sh);
};
would be much nicer.
I agree it would be nicer, but it seems less
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Justin Novosad ju...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nlwrote:
I think something like
interface ImageBitmap {
static Promise create(ImageBitmapSource image, optional long sx,
long sy, long sw, long sh);
};
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Justin Novosad ju...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl
wrote:
I think something like
interface ImageBitmap {
static
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
There's really no consistency here anyway, and the
Interface.create() idiom is pretty easy and nice.
I wonder - perhaps we can call the
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:08 PM, Justin Novosad ju...@google.com wrote:
I agree it would be nicer, but it seems less consistent with other existing
APIs.
The factory methods we have thus far should probably not be taken as
precedent. Almost nobody likes them. URL.createObjectURL() is somewhat
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:08 PM, Justin Novosad ju...@google.com wrote:
I agree it would be nicer, but it seems less consistent with other existing
APIs.
The factory methods we have thus far should probably not be
I was about to launch the implementation of window.createImageBitmap in
Blink, and I received feedback on the blink-dev mailing list that the
Promise API is the wave of the future for asynchronous JS, and that the
new createImageBitmap method should use Promises.
Current spec:
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Justin Novosad ju...@google.com wrote:
The proposal is to change the ImageBitmapFactories IDL to something like
this:
[NoInterfaceObject]
interface ImageBitmapFactories {
Promise createImageBitmap(ImageBitmapSource image, optional long sx, long
sy, long
26 matches
Mail list logo
