On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Shawn Wilsher <sdwilsh@mozilla.com> wrote: > On 5/20/2010 12:19 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > >> I additionally like the naming convention. The async interfaces is >> probably the interface that people will use first. Additionally that >> interface is available both to workers and to the main thread. So it >> makes sense to give the async interface the simpler name. >> > That is not how it is currently specified (and our proposal doesn't > indicate either way). The asynchronous versions are not available to worker > threads. I do recall discussion on this, however... > There was discussion, and I'm pretty sure the consensus was that it should be added. The main reason is that we want code that works in the page to work in a worker and that it really isn't much of a burden to implementors. I'll open an issue on this (tomorrow). J
Received on Thursday, 20 May 2010 20:58:14 UTC