Whats the main pain point? Whether promises are resolved immediately or
from a future event loop iteration?
Andreas
Gavin Sharp wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
