Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 14:47:19 +0100 Tom Hacohen said: > On 20/07/16 14:41, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote: > > On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 10:44:09 +0100 Tom Hacohen said: > > > >> On 20/07/16 00:50, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote: > >>> On

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On 20/07/16 14:41, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 10:44:09 +0100 Tom Hacohen said: > >> On 20/07/16 00:50, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote: >>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 16:35:47 +0100 Tom Hacohen said: >>> On

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 10:44:09 +0100 Tom Hacohen said: > On 20/07/16 00:50, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote: > > On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 16:35:47 +0100 Tom Hacohen said: > > > >> On 27/06/16 17:56, Cedric BAIL wrote: > >>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On 20/07/16 00:50, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 16:35:47 +0100 Tom Hacohen said: > >> On 27/06/16 17:56, Cedric BAIL wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:50 AM, Tom Hacohen wrote: On 19/06/16 02:52, Carsten

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 16:35:47 +0100 Tom Hacohen said: > On 27/06/16 17:56, Cedric BAIL wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:50 AM, Tom Hacohen wrote: > >> On 19/06/16 02:52, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > >>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:57:47 +0100 Tom Hacohen

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On 27/06/16 17:56, Cedric BAIL wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:50 AM, Tom Hacohen wrote: >> On 19/06/16 02:52, Carsten Haitzler wrote: >>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:57:47 +0100 Tom Hacohen said: On 17/06/16 03:53, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > On

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 15:55:02 -0700 Cedric BAIL said: > On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 7:12 AM, Carsten Haitzler > wrote: > > On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 10:28:37 -0300 Felipe Magno de Almeida > > said: > > i think a big difference is our

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 7:12 AM, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 10:28:37 -0300 Felipe Magno de Almeida > said: > i think a big difference is our view of promises. to me a promise is an OBJECT > that REPRESENTS the async action (and

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:50 AM, Tom Hacohen wrote: > On 19/06/16 02:52, Carsten Haitzler wrote: >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:57:47 +0100 Tom Hacohen said: >>> On 17/06/16 03:53, Carsten Haitzler wrote: On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:11:09 +0100 Tom Hacohen

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On 22/06/16 06:34, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 18:07:46 +0100 Tom Hacohen said: > >> On 19/06/16 02:27, Carsten Haitzler wrote: >>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:41:39 +0100 Tom Hacohen said: >>> On 17/06/16 03:28, Carsten Haitzler

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On 19/06/16 02:52, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:57:47 +0100 Tom Hacohen said: > >> On 17/06/16 03:53, Carsten Haitzler wrote: >>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:11:09 +0100 Tom Hacohen said: >>> Lets start with life-cycle: Eo is great,

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 11:38:46 -0300 Felipe Magno de Almeida said: > On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Carsten Haitzler > wrote: > > On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 10:28:37 -0300 Felipe Magno de Almeida > > said: > > > >> Hello,

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Michal Suchanek wrote: > Hello Michal, > On 25 June 2016 at 16:38, Felipe Magno de Almeida > wrote: >> Well, the object nomenclature is a little misleading IMO. For C++ at least >> everything is an object, even

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On 25 June 2016 at 16:38, Felipe Magno de Almeida wrote: > On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Carsten Haitzler > wrote: >> On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 10:28:37 -0300 Felipe Magno de Almeida >> said: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 10:28:37 -0300 Felipe Magno de Almeida > said: > >> Hello, >> >> I still don't get it why promises should be an all-or-nothing thing. It must >> be usable for all

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 10:28:37 -0300 Felipe Magno de Almeida said: > Hello, > > I still don't get it why promises should be an all-or-nothing thing. It must > be usable for all scenarios possible or we should drop it and > live with events which are impossible to

Re: [E-devel] promises...

Hello, I still don't get it why promises should be an all-or-nothing thing. It must be usable for all scenarios possible or we should drop it and live with events which are impossible to translate to the real semantics of asynchronous operations (I'm calling an asynchronous operation one that

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Fri, 24 Jun 2016 10:39:39 -0700 Cedric BAIL said: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 7:15 PM, Carsten Haitzler > wrote: > > On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 15:04:22 -0700 Cedric BAIL said: > >> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Carsten Haitzler

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 7:15 PM, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 15:04:22 -0700 Cedric BAIL said: >> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Carsten Haitzler >> wrote: >> > On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:38:13 -0700 Cedric BAIL

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 15:04:22 -0700 Cedric BAIL said: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Carsten Haitzler > wrote: > > On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:38:13 -0700 Cedric BAIL said: > >> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 6:46 AM, Felipe Magno de

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 20:11:31 -0700 Cedric BAIL said: > On Jun 22, 2016 18:28, "Carsten Haitzler" wrote: > > On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:31:54 -0700 Cedric BAIL said: > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 10:35 PM, Carsten Haitzler

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:38:13 -0700 Cedric BAIL said: >> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 6:46 AM, Felipe Magno de Almeida >> wrote: >> > On Jun 22, 2016 9:22 AM, "Daniel

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Jun 22, 2016 18:28, "Carsten Haitzler" wrote: > On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:31:54 -0700 Cedric BAIL said: > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 10:35 PM, Carsten Haitzler > > wrote: > > > On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 13:03:01 -0700 Cedric BAIL

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:38:13 -0700 Cedric BAIL said: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 6:46 AM, Felipe Magno de Almeida > wrote: > > On Jun 22, 2016 9:22 AM, "Daniel Kolesa" wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 1:04 AM, Felipe Magno

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:31:54 -0700 Cedric BAIL said: > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 10:35 PM, Carsten Haitzler > wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 13:03:01 -0700 Cedric BAIL said: > >> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 9:38 PM, Carsten Haitzler

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 6:46 AM, Felipe Magno de Almeida wrote: > On Jun 22, 2016 9:22 AM, "Daniel Kolesa" wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 1:04 AM, Felipe Magno de Almeida >> wrote: >> > it is the _perfect_ match

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 10:35 PM, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 13:03:01 -0700 Cedric BAIL said: >> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 9:38 PM, Carsten Haitzler >> wrote: >> > On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 00:35:35 -0300 Felipe Magno

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Jun 22, 2016 9:22 AM, "Daniel Kolesa" wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 1:04 AM, Felipe Magno de Almeida > wrote: > > > > it is the _perfect_ match IMO. Probably we should ask someone > > that actually uses Lua about it, instead of guessing.

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 1:04 AM, Felipe Magno de Almeida wrote: > > it is the _perfect_ match IMO. Probably we should ask someone > that actually uses Lua about it, instead of guessing. > I'm inclined to agree with raster here. I honestly don't see coroutines being a

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 13:03:01 -0700 Cedric BAIL said: > On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 9:38 PM, Carsten Haitzler > wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 00:35:35 -0300 Felipe Magno de Almeida > > said: > >> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 12:06

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 18:07:46 +0100 Tom Hacohen said: > On 19/06/16 02:27, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:41:39 +0100 Tom Hacohen said: > > > >> On 17/06/16 03:28, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > >>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 19:13:20 +0100 Tom

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 18:04:30 +0100 Tom Hacohen said: > On 19/06/16 02:24, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:21:13 +0100 Tom Hacohen said: > > > >> On 17/06/16 03:21, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > >>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 19:29:52 +0100 Tom

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 9:38 PM, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 00:35:35 -0300 Felipe Magno de Almeida > said: >> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Carsten Haitzler >> wrote: >> > On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 21:04:59

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On 19/06/16 02:27, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:41:39 +0100 Tom Hacohen said: > >> On 17/06/16 03:28, Carsten Haitzler wrote: >>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 19:13:20 +0100 Tom Hacohen said: >>> On 03/06/16 20:17, Cedric BAIL wrote:

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On 19/06/16 02:24, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:21:13 +0100 Tom Hacohen said: > >> On 17/06/16 03:21, Carsten Haitzler wrote: >>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 19:29:52 +0100 Tom Hacohen said: >>> On 16/06/16 10:47, Carsten Haitzler

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 21:21:57 -0300 Felipe Magno de Almeida wrote: > On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 9:19 PM, David Seikel > wrote: > > On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 21:04:59 -0300 Felipe Magno de Almeida > > wrote: > > > >> > coroutines

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 21:04:59 -0300 Felipe Magno de Almeida > said: > >> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Carsten Haitzler >> wrote: >> > On Sun, 19 Jun 2016

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 08:10:43 +0930 Simon Lees said: > > > On 06/20/2016 07:52 AM, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote: > > On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 14:21:28 -0300 Felipe Magno de Almeida > > said: > > > >> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Carsten

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 21:04:59 -0300 Felipe Magno de Almeida said: > On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Carsten Haitzler > wrote: > > On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 14:21:28 -0300 Felipe Magno de Almeida > > said: > > [snip] > >

Re: [E-devel] promises...

Small correction: On Jun 19, 2016 9:04 PM, "Felipe Magno de Almeida" wrote: > [snip] > That's not the job of promises, the job of promises is being a primitive > that bindings can abstract it. If you make it a uber_super_solution_for_async, > then obviously it

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 9:19 PM, David Seikel wrote: > On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 21:04:59 -0300 Felipe Magno de Almeida > wrote: > >> > coroutines are a wrong match. just because they run code later >> > doesn't mean they match a promise. >> >> it is the

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 21:04:59 -0300 Felipe Magno de Almeida wrote: > > coroutines are a wrong match. just because they run code later > > doesn't mean they match a promise. > > it is the _perfect_ match IMO. Probably we should ask someone > that actually uses Lua

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 14:21:28 -0300 Felipe Magno de Almeida > said: [snip] >> I think you're confusing by thinking I have to instantiate a >> std::future/std::promise >> for this to be

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 14:21:28 -0300 Felipe Magno de Almeida said: > On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Carsten Haitzler > wrote: > > On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:06:35 -0300 Felipe Magno de Almeida > > said: > > [snip] > >

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:06:35 -0300 Felipe Magno de Almeida > said: [snip] >> I have explained in the email exactly how they would be translated to C++, >> JS and Lua by _not_ being a

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:06:35 -0300 Felipe Magno de Almeida said: > On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 10:56 PM, Carsten Haitzler > wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:12:51 -0300 Felipe Magno de Almeida > > said: > > > > felipe -

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 10:56 PM, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:12:51 -0300 Felipe Magno de Almeida > said: > > felipe - look at eina promises then loo at stdc++ promise and futures. they > dont even match. js promises cant be

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 13:38:16 +0100 Tom Hacohen said: > On 16/06/16 22:55, Cedric BAIL wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Tom Hacohen wrote: > >> On 03/06/16 07:42, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > >>> ok. interacting with promises... > >>> > >>>

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:41:39 +0100 Tom Hacohen said: > On 17/06/16 03:28, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 19:13:20 +0100 Tom Hacohen said: > > > >> On 03/06/16 20:17, Cedric BAIL wrote: > >> > > also promises should become eo

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:57:47 +0100 Tom Hacohen said: > On 17/06/16 03:53, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:11:09 +0100 Tom Hacohen said: > > > >> Lets start with life-cycle: Eo is great, and I think using Eo is the > >> right way to

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:12:51 -0300 Felipe Magno de Almeida said: felipe - look at eina promises then loo at stdc++ promise and futures. they dont even match. js promises cant be canceled. lua doesn't even have the idea of a promise. what we have in eina_promise

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:21:13 +0100 Tom Hacohen said: > On 17/06/16 03:21, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 19:29:52 +0100 Tom Hacohen said: > > > >> On 16/06/16 10:47, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > >>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:28:22 +0900

Re: [E-devel] promises...

So, JP asked my opinion privately and he thought it would be better for me to paste what I replied here. I didn't want to make this discussion longer, however I have to make these points explicit so we can move on. Sorry in advance for the huge email. So I'll paste my answer here and then make

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On 17/06/16 03:53, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:11:09 +0100 Tom Hacohen said: > >> Lets start with life-cycle: Eo is great, and I think using Eo is the >> right way to go, but unfortunately that doesn't solve our life-cycle >> issue. When do promises die?

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On 17/06/16 03:28, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 19:13:20 +0100 Tom Hacohen said: > >> On 03/06/16 20:17, Cedric BAIL wrote: >> > also promises should become eo objects with event cb's > so they work just like everything else. i can ref, unref,

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On 16/06/16 19:51, Cedric BAIL wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Tom Hacohen wrote: >> On 03/06/16 20:17, Cedric BAIL wrote: >> > also promises should become eo objects with event cb's > so they work just like everything else. i can ref, unref, delete and

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On 17/06/16 09:33, Jean-Philippe André wrote: > On 17 June 2016 at 17:21, Tom Hacohen wrote: > >> On 17/06/16 03:21, Carsten Haitzler wrote: >>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 19:29:52 +0100 Tom Hacohen >> said: >>> On 16/06/16 10:47, Carsten Haitzler wrote:

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On 17 June 2016 at 17:21, Tom Hacohen wrote: > On 17/06/16 03:21, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 19:29:52 +0100 Tom Hacohen > said: > > > >> On 16/06/16 10:47, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > >>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:28:22 +0900

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On 17/06/16 03:21, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 19:29:52 +0100 Tom Hacohen said: > >> On 16/06/16 10:47, Carsten Haitzler wrote: >>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:28:22 +0900 Jean-Philippe André >>> said: >>> >>> >> The ON_HOLD flag, now

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On 16/06/16 19:53, Cedric BAIL wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Tom Hacohen wrote: >> On 16/06/16 10:47, Carsten Haitzler wrote: >>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:28:22 +0900 Jean-Philippe André >>> said: >> The ON_HOLD flag, now called

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:53:56 -0700 Cedric BAIL said: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Tom Hacohen wrote: > > On 16/06/16 10:47, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > >> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:28:22 +0900 Jean-Philippe André > >> said: >

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 17:28:07 -0700 Cedric BAIL said: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Carsten Haitzler > wrote: > > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 13:41:06 -0700 Cedric BAIL said: > >> Ok, I am giving up on this. We will make it an eo

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:55:05 -0700 Cedric BAIL said: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Tom Hacohen wrote: > > On 03/06/16 07:42, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > >> ok. interacting with promises... > >> > >> these are just a mess. > >> > >> 1. the value

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:11:09 +0100 Tom Hacohen said: > Lets start with life-cycle: Eo is great, and I think using Eo is the > right way to go, but unfortunately that doesn't solve our life-cycle > issue. When do promises die? > > p = efl_file_set()... > // Delete here if

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 19:29:52 +0100 Tom Hacohen said: > On 16/06/16 10:47, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:28:22 +0900 Jean-Philippe André > > said: > > > > > The ON_HOLD flag, now called efl_event_processed_get/set() is a better >

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:51:45 -0700 Cedric BAIL said: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Tom Hacohen wrote: > > On 03/06/16 20:17, Cedric BAIL wrote: > > > also promises should become eo objects with event cb's > so they work just like

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 19:38:55 +0100 Tom Hacohen said: > God, walls of text. :) > > I think you are confusing a few things which is where your disagreement > with raster comes from. More on that below. > > > On 16/06/16 01:28, Cedric BAIL wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Tom Hacohen wrote: > On 03/06/16 07:42, Carsten Haitzler wrote: >> ok. interacting with promises... >> >> these are just a mess. >> >> 1. the value thing is just odd. >> 2. they are complex to set up inside our api (setting them up setting

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On 03/06/16 07:42, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > ok. interacting with promises... > > these are just a mess. > > 1. the value thing is just odd. > 2. they are complex to set up inside our api (setting them up setting cancel > cb's and more) > 3. they totally screw with what eo and interfaces was all

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Tom Hacohen wrote: > On 16/06/16 10:47, Carsten Haitzler wrote: >> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:28:22 +0900 Jean-Philippe André >> said: > The ON_HOLD flag, now called efl_event_processed_get/set() is a better >

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Tom Hacohen wrote: > On 03/06/16 20:17, Cedric BAIL wrote: > also promises should become eo objects with event cb's so they work just like everything else. i can ref, unref, delete and whatever them like everything

Re: [E-devel] promises...

God, walls of text. :) I think you are confusing a few things which is where your disagreement with raster comes from. More on that below. On 16/06/16 01:28, Cedric BAIL wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Carsten Haitzler > wrote: >> On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 13:41:06

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On 03/06/16 20:17, Cedric BAIL wrote: >>> also promises should become eo objects with event cb's >>> so they work just like everything else. i can ref, unref, delete and >>> whatever >>> them like everything else. > > As said above, this does work. Example with event : > eo_promise =

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On 16/06/16 10:47, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:28:22 +0900 Jean-Philippe André > said: > > The ON_HOLD flag, now called efl_event_processed_get/set() is a better approach to stop processing events. >>> >>> That is off topic, but seriously

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:28:22 +0900 Jean-Philippe André said: > > > The ON_HOLD flag, now called efl_event_processed_get/set() is a better > > > approach to stop processing events. > > > > That is off topic, but seriously something we should consider asap if > > we want to

Re: [E-devel] promises...

Hi, On 16 June 2016 at 05:41, Cedric BAIL wrote: > Hello, > > Ok, I am giving up on this. We will make it an eo object, but not an > eolian one as it should be a native type for any binding (It is sure > that C++, Lua and JS will have to do a manual binding for it) as there

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 13:41:06 -0700 Cedric BAIL said: >> Ok, I am giving up on this. We will make it an eo object, but not an >> eolian one as it should be a native type for any binding (It is

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 13:41:06 -0700 Cedric BAIL said: > Hello, > > Ok, I am giving up on this. We will make it an eo object, but not an > eolian one as it should be a native type for any binding (It is sure > that C++, Lua and JS will have to do a manual binding for it) as

Re: [E-devel] promises...

Hello, Ok, I am giving up on this. We will make it an eo object, but not an eolian one as it should be a native type for any binding (It is sure that C++, Lua and JS will have to do a manual binding for it) as there is very little case were inheritance make sense on promise and wouldn't at the

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 10:07:33 -0700 Cedric BAIL said: > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 8:10 AM, wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 08:16:20PM +0900, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > >> > > [...] > >> they should be eo objects. > > > > I wondered in the

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 22:37:55 +1000 David Seikel said: > I'm just gonna pipe in here a little bit. > > On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 20:16:20 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) > wrote: > > > > If history tell us, our existing solution is not usable, but prove

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 17:10:07 +0200 marcel-hollerb...@t-online.de said: > Hello, > > On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 08:16:20PM +0900, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > > > [...] > > they should be eo objects. > > I wondered in the beginning why promises are not a eo object, comparing the > two models shows

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 11:02:37 -0700 Cedric BAIL said: > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 4:16 AM, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > > On Mon, 6 Jun 2016 06:01:13 +0200 Cedric BAIL said: > > > > >> >> You just can't do with eo event what promise

Re: [E-devel] promises...

Hi Felipe & Cedric, Thanks for explaining the lifecycle in detail, ... but I'm still not convinced :) On 14 June 2016 at 02:28, Felipe Magno de Almeida < felipe.m.alme...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry for top-posting. But let me summarize the Promise lifetime: > > A Promise when created starts

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Cedric BAIL wrote: > On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 10:13 PM, Jean-Philippe André > wrote: >> On 13 June 2016 at 03:02, Cedric BAIL wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 4:16 AM, Carsten Haitzler

Re: [E-devel] promises...

Sorry for top-posting. But let me summarize the Promise lifetime: A Promise when created starts with a ref-count of 1. If the promise is not needed anymore, it should be unref'ed (if no eina_promise_then is made, either directly or by eina_promise_all/eina_promise_race). The first

Re: [E-devel] promises...

Hello, On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 10:13 PM, Jean-Philippe André wrote: > On 13 June 2016 at 03:02, Cedric BAIL wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 4:16 AM, Carsten Haitzler >> wrote: >> > On Mon, 6 Jun 2016 06:01:13 +0200 Cedric BAIL

Re: [E-devel] promises...

Hi Cedric, On 13 June 2016 at 03:02, Cedric BAIL wrote: > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 4:16 AM, Carsten Haitzler > wrote: > > On Mon, 6 Jun 2016 06:01:13 +0200 Cedric BAIL > said: > > > > >> >> You just can't do with eo event what

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 4:16 AM, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > On Mon, 6 Jun 2016 06:01:13 +0200 Cedric BAIL said: >> >> You just can't do with eo event what promise do. Eo event are a >> > >> > it's not NECESSARY to do anything new. timeout can be an eo

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 8:10 AM, wrote: > On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 08:16:20PM +0900, Carsten Haitzler wrote: >> > [...] >> they should be eo objects. > > I wondered in the beginning why promises are not a eo object, comparing the > two models shows that it can be

Re: [E-devel] promises...

Hello, On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 08:16:20PM +0900, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > [...] > they should be eo objects. I wondered in the beginning why promises are not a eo object, comparing the two models shows that it can be dangerous moving promises to a Eo.Base class. Take a look at the events,

Re: [E-devel] promises...

I'm just gonna pipe in here a little bit. On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 20:16:20 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote: > > If history tell us, our existing solution is not usable, but prove > > me wrong and show me how amazing our current limited set of > > asynchronous API

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Mon, 6 Jun 2016 06:01:13 +0200 Cedric BAIL said: > >> >> 2. they are complex to set up inside our api (setting them up setting > >> >> cancel cb's and more) > >> > >> What do you mean by that ? > > > > look at Efl_Internal_Promise and then needing Eina_Promise_Owner in

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 3:08 AM, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:17:18 -0700 Cedric BAIL said: >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 12:20 AM, Jean-Philippe André >> wrote: >> > On 3 June 2016 at 15:42, Carsten Haitzler

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:17:18 -0700 Cedric BAIL said: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 12:20 AM, Jean-Philippe André > wrote: > > On 3 June 2016 at 15:42, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > >> ok. interacting with promises... > >> > >> these are just

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 12:20 AM, Jean-Philippe André wrote: > On 3 June 2016 at 15:42, Carsten Haitzler wrote: >> ok. interacting with promises... >> >> these are just a mess. >> >> 1. the value thing is just odd. That is a known issue that should be

Re: [E-devel] promises...

On 3 June 2016 at 15:42, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > ok. interacting with promises... > > these are just a mess. > > 1. the value thing is just odd. > 2. they are complex to set up inside our api (setting them up setting > cancel > cb's and more) > 3. they totally screw with

[E-devel] promises...

ok. interacting with promises... these are just a mess. 1. the value thing is just odd. 2. they are complex to set up inside our api (setting them up setting cancel cb's and more) 3. they totally screw with what eo and interfaces was all about - making the api EASIER to use. promises make it