Comments on: Promises with dojo – a lightweight alternative to dojo.Deferred

By: Jens Arps

Jens Arps — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 09:53:17 +0000

@Eugene Lazutkin Thanks for the pointer. Pretty in-depth conversation, so I'll have to continue reading it later ( == weekend ).

By: Micheil Smith

Micheil Smith — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 08:23:20 +0000

@Jens Arps and @ben hockey: I agree with Ben's version, it's much cleaner then my original modification.

By: Eugene Lazutkin

Eugene Lazutkin — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 04:51:08 +0000

Incidentally a possible “event”-based implementation was discussed in Dojo-Dev (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.dojo.devel/12371) — look for onCallback. That article contains other views and unanswered questions on a possible design of Promise.

I agree with you 100% that we have to find a synergy between different pieces of the toolkit (in this case AOP and Promise) in order to have an elegant cohesive solution, which is flexible and easy to use, rather than a bunch of independent yet inflexible and inconsistent blotches of code.

By: uberVU - social comments

uberVU - social comments — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 00:33:23 +0000

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by jensarps: New blog post: Promises with dojo: a lightweight alternative to dojo.Deferred http://bit.ly/cpaVVj #dojo #promise…

By: Jens Arps

Jens Arps — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 00:02:33 +0000

@ben hockey Interesting idea. I guess what you are aiming at is this: http://gist.github.com/295287 *Big* pro of that: No more unique id handling, no private _promiseId value. A drawback would be that you'd lose the possibility to distinguish the promises by that id and you couldn't hook onto the topics being published. Bottom line is… hm, hard to say, but, personally, I' go for the non-topic, direct-connect version you came up with because it is simpler and shorter. Cool idea!

By: ben hockey

ben hockey — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 01:48:34 +0000

you could also skip the pub/sub and just use ‘then’ to dojo.connect to ‘emit’. emit would be an empty function and ‘then’ would use connect in place of subscribe. iirc, pub/sub uses connect under the covers.

By: Jens Arps

Jens Arps — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 13:30:16 +0000

@Micheil Smith

Yes, that looks great! I really like the .emit() idea. It doesn’t add too much to the code, and it makes it far more readable and easier to use/understand.

Thanks for this, I’ll update the post with your modifications later today

By: Micheil Smith

Micheil Smith — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 13:13:11 +0000

Here’s a version I quickly created based off what you have: http://gist.github.com/293591

By: Micheil Smith

Micheil Smith — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 12:52:25 +0000

Some how I don’t think this is the nicest API that could be used. Surely something like http://gist.github.com/293569 would be better? It wouldn’t be too hard to implement and the code size difference would be minimal. It also lowers the level for figuring out how promises work and should be used.