On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbar...@mit.edu> wrote: > On 7/30/13 11:13 AM, Dave Townsend wrote: >> >> The JS promise implementation came out of a desire to use promises in >> add-ons and devtools amongst others. I believe the C++ implementation came >> out of the DOM spec. I'm not sure why we need both. > > OK. Given that there is also a desire to be able to use the DOM Promises in > b2g (see bug 897913), how do people feel about enabling the Promise API in > at least chrome globals (and via Xrays), and setting up Promise in things > like JS component globals as well? This shouldn't be too difficult to do... > Then anyone who wants to use Promises in Chrome code can use the DOM ones.
Sounds great. We'll need to investigate whether the implementations are compatible, though - we've been going through various existing JS consumers switching them to a different promise implementation (Promise.jsm, https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=856878 tracks several instances) and have been running into issues with different behavior related to promise resolution. There is a significant amount of existing chrome code using one of the two existing JS implementations (Promise.jsm and core/promise.js from the Add-on SDK), and porting them to DOM promises will take some effort. Gavin _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
