W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > November 2008

RE: Workers

From: Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 23:28:23 -0500
To: "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <006e01c94548$43c6e580$cb54b080$@com>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Ian Hickson
> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 6:10 PM
> To: Justin James
> Cc: public-html@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Workers
>
> > Do you think that it might make sense to provide guidance to
> developers
> > in this item that presents some information like, "Web workers are
> good
> > for XYZ, they are not good for ABC"?
> 
> I've added a Scope section that covers these kinds of issues.

It looks perfect, thanks! I think that anyone reading that section will
definitely not go chasing this as an avenue for "parallel processing", and
definitely understand that this is for "asynchronous processing".

> > That passes data into the queue of the worker itself. But what if you
> > need to pass data to the server when you call the URL? For example,
> > maybe the code provided by URL is dynamically generated by the
> server?
> > I've done things like this before, and in certain situations it makes
> a
> > lot of sense. In those situations, you want to be able to do POST to
> the
> > server to retrieve the script used to create the Web Worker.
> 
> I really don't see this as a common use case, so I don't want to add
> features to the API to handle them. At least, not in this version.

Fair enough!

Thanks for all of the hard work on this... it seems to have grown about 5
times in size from the original draft, which shows how much input has gone
into it.

J.Ja
Received on Thursday, 13 November 2008 04:29:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:59 UTC