985953 - Using async-utils with protocol.js is aesthetically unattractive

Status: RESOLVED WORKSFORME

(DevTools :: General, defect)

Description

[Joe Walker [:jwalker]]

functionName: method(async(function*(params) {
    // ...
  }, ....)),

Looking at Task.jsm, I'd think that the overhead is irrelevant compared to using the network, so I think we could probably make this the default.

Comment 1

[Joe Walker [:jwalker]]

By "make this the default", I mean: Make it so that method() does async() automatically.

Comment 2

[Brandon Benvie [:benvie]]

One somewhat related note: use Task.async now instead of async from async-utils. It does the same thing, but was deemed useful enough to live in Task itself.

Comment 3

[Girish Sharma [:Optimizer]]

That will make it even more horrible looking :/

functionName: method(Task.async(function*(params) {

Comment 4

[Joe Walker [:jwalker]]

Task.async() is such a small function that we *may* benefit by re-implementing it and doing something better than the default with exceptions/rejects.

Comment 5

[Brandon Benvie [:benvie]]

(In reply to Joe Walker [:jwalker] from comment #4)
> Task.async() is such a small function that we *may* benefit by
> re-implementing it and doing something better than the default with
> exceptions/rejects.

Certainly. I think there's benefits to using asyncUtils.asyncOnce since that's a common pattern in our tools, for example.

Comment 6

[Joe Walker [:jwalker]]

Assigning to me so I don't forget, but feel free to take it off me.

Comment 7

[J. Ryan Stinnett [:jryans] (Use needinfo, replies may be slow)]

I believe native promises and async / await have removed this concern.