- From: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
- Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2011 06:45:27 -0500
- To: Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com>
- Cc: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 6:10 AM, Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com> wrote: > I am suggesting that as the semantics are the same, People can think of this > like serialised access, but implementers can use STMs to make their browser > faster than the competition (if they want). To the user it will look the > same. Not according to [1]. By the description there, STM requires re-executing the callback if two callbacks simultaneously modify the same data and cause a conflict. This is very different to the user, who has to deal with the possibility of the callback being called multiple times. Any side-effects of the function would occur multiple times. This would lead to many subtle bugs, because the retry case would be exceedingly rare, causing very poorly-tested code paths in user code. It's also much more complex to spec, and for users to understand. Jonas's approach behaves like any other callback, being called just once. [1] http://book.realworldhaskell.org/read/software-transactional-memory.html -- Glenn Maynard
Received on Saturday, 8 January 2011 11:46:02 UTC