- From: Olli Pettay <olli@pettay.fi>
- Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 15:14:44 +0300
- To: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
- CC: public-audio@w3.org
On 09/11/2014 03:25 AM, Alex Russell wrote: > > On 10 Sep 2014 10:03, "Olli Pettay" <olli@pettay.fi <mailto:olli@pettay.fi>> wrote: > > > > On 09/10/2014 08:00 PM, Alex Russell wrote: > >> > >> I see. It should be removed in favor of fetch(). > > > > > > Why? > > > > (But that is off topic to this wg.) > > Because synchronous == bad. That doesn't explain why fetch() should be used. async XHR works just fine. (still off topic, sorry about that.) > > >> > >> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Olli Pettay <olli@pettay.fi <mailto:olli@pettay.fi> <mailto:olli@pettay.fi <mailto:olli@pettay.fi>>> wrote: > >> > >> On 09/10/2014 07:48 PM, Alex Russell wrote: > >> > >> e) The topic of whether or not synchronous APIs must be allowed on workers is being debated on public-script-coord, and it seems like > >> there is no > >> consensus on that yet. But I find the possibility of running synchronous XHR on the audio processing thread unacceptable for example, > >> given its > >> realtime requirements. > >> > >> > >> You should remove XHR and, if anything, only surface fetch. Actually, it was my recollection taht XHR isn't in the base interface for workers. > >> Is that > >> wrong?: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/__web-apps/current-work/__multipage/workers.html#apis-__available-to-workers > >> <http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/workers.html#apis-available-to-workers> > >> > >> > >> http://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/#__interface-xmlhttprequest <http://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/#interface-xmlhttprequest> > >> > >> I can see Exposed=Worker there. > >> > >> > > >
Received on Friday, 12 September 2014 12:15:16 UTC