On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Mike de Boer <mdeb...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> > > On 01 Nov 2014, at 20:50, Kyle Huey <m...@kylehuey.com> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 12:42 PM, <ajvinc...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The reviewer should understand asynchronous Promise operations, > preferably the OS.File promises > > > > We shouldn't be landing new code that uses Promise.jsm in > mozilla-central. > > Well, that surely hasn’t been communicated properly yet, so I doubt > everyone knows about this move. Well, there was https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/firefox-dev/2013-November/001137.html > Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for it, but I *think* we don’t want to smother > our newfound love for Promises - which Promise/ Task.jsm certainly fuelled > - with a transition that lacks a clear upgrade path. > If you know of anything that doesn't work, please file a bug blocking bug 939636. If you really want to use defer() (which you shouldn't, because it makes your code less weby), you can do something like: http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/dom/bluetooth/tests/marionette/head.js#47 My question, for example, is: does our Structured Clone algo implementation > support the DOM Promise object(s)? > No, and the spec doesn't either. What on earth would the semantics of promise cloning be? Are people doing that with Promise.jsm? bholley _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
