- From: Brendan Eich <brendan@secure.meer.net>
- Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 11:51:25 -0700
- To: David Bruant <bruant.d@gmail.com>
- CC: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, adelespinasse@gmail.com, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
David Bruant wrote: > That's not what I had understood. So both types of APIs (sync and > async) will be available to workers for say, IndexedDB? > If that's the case, I have no problem with it and we can stop the > discussion. > What I remembered of the state of the consensus was that given sync > APIs were considered needed in workers, they would be added to workers > without the async counterpart (since that would duplicate the API > surface). Sorry I missed this -- do you have a link to the thread? >> If I understand you, you're arguing for everyone manually inverting >> control flow, because that maximizes code re-use. > That's what everyone is already used to doing already (not because of > code reuse, but because that's how JS APIs are designed). This is a circular argument. We have a choice for workers to do something different (and in addition, not instead-of). /be
Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2014 18:51:57 UTC