Use async/await.

Use async/await.

R=kasperl@google.com

Committed: https://code.google.com/p/dart/source/detail?r=42993

[ahe, 2015-01-19 14:09:07]

ahe@google.com changed reviewers:
+ kasperl@google.com

[kasperl, 2015-01-19 14:22:59]

LGTM with some food for thought:

https://codereview.chromium.org/840293005/diff/1/dart/pkg/dart2js_incremental...
File dart/pkg/dart2js_incremental/lib/server.dart (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/840293005/diff/1/dart/pkg/dart2js_incremental...
dart/pkg/dart2js_incremental/lib/server.dart:68: return await
notFound(request.uri);
I don't think you have to await here. The futures are automatically "flattened".
Not sure if it ever makes (a lot of) sense to await as the last part of a return
expression.

https://codereview.chromium.org/840293005/diff/1/dart/pkg/dart2js_incremental...
dart/pkg/dart2js_incremental/lib/server.dart:136: return await
WebSocketTransformer.isUpgradeRequest(request)
Here you definitely need the await.

[ahe, 2015-01-19 14:52:37]

Thank you, Kasper!

https://codereview.chromium.org/840293005/diff/1/dart/pkg/dart2js_incremental...
File dart/pkg/dart2js_incremental/lib/server.dart (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/840293005/diff/1/dart/pkg/dart2js_incremental...
dart/pkg/dart2js_incremental/lib/server.dart:68: return await
notFound(request.uri);
On 2015/01/19 14:22:59, kasperl wrote:
> I don't think you have to await here. The futures are automatically
"flattened".
> Not sure if it ever makes (a lot of) sense to await as the last part of a
return
> expression.

(We discussed this in person, attempting to summarize here).

Yes. I don't have to await here. However, if I were to wrap the code above in a
try/catch block, I wouldn't get the desired behavior. So as a matter of style, I
think the right thing do to is to always await in an async method.

https://codereview.chromium.org/840293005/diff/1/dart/pkg/dart2js_incremental...
dart/pkg/dart2js_incremental/lib/server.dart:136: return await
WebSocketTransformer.isUpgradeRequest(request)
On 2015/01/19 14:22:59, kasperl wrote:
> Here you definitely need the await.

Acknowledged.

[ahe, 2015-01-19 14:53:26]

Committed patchset #1 (id:1) manually as 42993 (presubmit successful).