00:39 | <Derrick> | Hey |
07:23 | <Andreu Botella> | I would prefer the final semantics are worked out ahead of time, as part of the "initial rollout". |
07:25 | <Andreu Botella> | Also, the set of events we're considering for the initial rollout are ones for which we have use cases at this point, but there might be other use cases that haven't been brought up yet |
07:26 | <Andreu Botella> | One common thing with AsyncContext is that since much of the goal is for third-party code to be able to pass state seamlessly across first-party code, it's hard to know which events the context should propagate through, because the first-parties are not involved in the conversation |
07:30 | <Domenic> | I mean, saying people might implement it wrong and therefore we should implement it piecemeal is not generally how we do things on the web platform. We can't trade hypothetical interoperability bugs now for definite compatibility bugs later. |
11:49 | <Andreu Botella> | I am quite confident that there will be interoperability bugs because we're making things observable that so far have been unobservable |
11:49 | <Andreu Botella> | but fair enough |
13:11 | <annevk> | I guess what you're saying is that this new feature might build upon some existing infrastructure that might not match the envisioned behavior? But that's really an argument for writing sufficient tests. Not for delivering only part of the feature. |