- From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:47:29 -0800
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: David Levin <levin@chromium.org>, Joshua Bell <jsbell@chromium.org>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Nov 17, 2011, at 6:41 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:05 PM, David Levin <levin@chromium.org> wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 2:07 PM, David Levin <levin@chromium.org> wrote: >>>> It seems like this mechanism would deadlock a worker if two workers send >>>> each other a synchronous message. >>> >>> Indeed. We can only allow child workers to block on parent workers. >>> Never the other way around. >> >> So the api would have to know who is listening to the other end of the port >> and throw if it isn't a parent? > > I'm not convinced that we can do this with ports in a sane manner. > Only on dedicated workers. There you always know who is listening on > the other end. I.e. only on the DedicatedWorkerGlobalScope/Worker > interfaces. I agree on this one. A big no-thanks to synchronous messaging over ports. Still, dedicated workers to a parent seems doable. I've proposed a different worker scope for lightweight threads. Dedicated workers are relatively heavy and so a few workers blocked on the parent is not outside of acceptability. -Charles
Received on Friday, 18 November 2011 02:48:01 UTC