W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > December 2007

[whatwg] Asynchronous database API feedback

From: Krzysztof Żelechowski <giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:42:49 +0100
Message-ID: <1197387770.6515.41.camel@a1dmin.vola.spe.com.pl>

Dnia 10-12-2007, Pn o godzinie 21:22 -0600, Dimitri Glazkov pisze:

> Guys, I think the point was that it's not unreasonable to have
> synchronous API. The argument about slow/busy devices is valid, but I
> still think the developer should have the choice of either going with
> a simple query/receive calls in their code as opposed to braving
> complexity of asynchronous API. I fully agree with this point and do
> believe that if it's a low-hanging fruit, it should be included into
> the implementation.

Allowing the script to wait until the transaction completes would be
enough to provide synchronization, wouldn't it?  A stubborn programmer
can still do it: make a transaction set an event upon completion and
make the script loop until that event is set.  Upon the theory that the
transaction in question is a quickie, it would be quite acceptable,
especially if the script engine fiddled with thread priorities a bit.

If I am right, it is not such a big issue after all.

Chris
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2007 07:42:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:38 UTC