You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The spec is currently missing a model for dealing with subsequent call to get() (i.e., subsequently calling .get()).
We have two options. A subsequent call to get():
aborts the current get request (AbortError). New call to get() takes over.
gets aborted or invalidated (with the respective exceptions). Current call continues until it settles.
Given that we always show UI, the implications of 1 could be annoying to users. It would mean it would that it could be used to serve the same purpose as the abort controller.
Thus, my preference is that we use 2, as it prevents accidental tear down of the presentment UI. Developers can still tear down the UI with the abort controller whenever they choose.
Thoughts?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Option (2) SGTM, that's what we do for FedCM too: we consider it a developer error, because they could have used the AbortController to cancel the first request if they wanted to.
The spec is currently missing a model for dealing with subsequent call to get() (i.e., subsequently calling
.get()
).We have two options. A subsequent call to get():
Given that we always show UI, the implications of 1 could be annoying to users. It would mean it would that it could be used to serve the same purpose as the abort controller.
Thus, my preference is that we use 2, as it prevents accidental tear down of the presentment UI. Developers can still tear down the UI with the abort controller whenever they choose.
Thoughts?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: