W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: Future cancellation

From: Juan Ignacio Dopazo <dopazo.juan@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:17:03 -0300
Message-ID: <CA+ejddXmCa=cL-f=Nin5JqX3HA1u94jf4SGjEFD7rPC0=TSF9A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
Cc: Ron Buckton <rbuckton@chronicles.org>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
2013/4/30 Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>

> First, synchronous resolution needs some justification. I don't understand
> why you've added it in the first design.
>

When I first read about the synchronous resolution flag I thought it made
sense, for example in the context of network requests. When a network
request is completed you can call resolve() with the synchronous flag
because you know you're in a new tick of the event loop. It basically
allows you to avoid scheduling notification in the future when you already
know you're being asynchronous.

Juan
Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2013 15:17:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:37:49 UTC