Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay. But Promises already provide asynchronous try/catch blocks, and you could have used those as the basis of your API (and as first-class objects that get returned), rather than inventing a new API and set of objects. > I believe that flow control in the future will be done with generators; check out https://github.com/visionmedia/co for example. Generators and promises are both types of flow control that will be…
A Zone object could be a "subclass" of a Promise. It's something I have considered but I didn't think it'd be necessary for the first release. > But Promises already provide asynchronous try/catch blocks They do, if all you use is modules that return promises, and the node ecosystem currently has many modules that don't. For example: zone.create(function MyZone() { // Within MyZone setTimeout(function() { // Within M…
1. Creates the "Zone" and "Gate" abstractions, and, 2. Monkeypatches Node to use Zones and Gates.
To make setTimeout work, the zone module monkeypatches global.setTimeout and replaces it with a version that uses Zones and Gates. Rather than do that, what you could do is not use Zones and Gates at all, and monkeypatch global.setTimeout and replace it with a version that uses Promises. And: there, Promises work with setTimeout. Just as easily as Zones and Gates do.
(Alternatively, what many Promise libraries do is offer ways to generate "promisified" versions of individual non-Promise functions and encourage you to call those instead, rather than monkeypatching globals.)
My objection to zone is just the new abstractions, Zones and Gates. They don't seem to offer much (anything?) over Promises, and they seem needlessly incompatible with them. Instead of the two-part module, where you introduce Zones and Gates and also monkeypatch everything to use them, you could just have a one-part module that monkeypatches everything to use Promises. It would be less code and it would interoperate with the existing JS ecosystem.
I don't have a particular love for the Promise abstraction: it's just that everyone is going to have to learn and work with Promises anyway (since they're in ES6, and already in V8), and there's no reason to invent a new abstraction for asynchronous try/catch when one already exists. There are lots of Promise-supporting libraries, and no Zone-and-Gate-supporting ones, save for zone itself. Why bother with the fork?