- From: Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 23:28:23 -0500
- To: "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: <public-html@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Ian Hickson > Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 6:10 PM > To: Justin James > Cc: public-html@w3.org > Subject: RE: Workers > > > Do you think that it might make sense to provide guidance to > developers > > in this item that presents some information like, "Web workers are > good > > for XYZ, they are not good for ABC"? > > I've added a Scope section that covers these kinds of issues. It looks perfect, thanks! I think that anyone reading that section will definitely not go chasing this as an avenue for "parallel processing", and definitely understand that this is for "asynchronous processing". > > That passes data into the queue of the worker itself. But what if you > > need to pass data to the server when you call the URL? For example, > > maybe the code provided by URL is dynamically generated by the > server? > > I've done things like this before, and in certain situations it makes > a > > lot of sense. In those situations, you want to be able to do POST to > the > > server to retrieve the script used to create the Web Worker. > > I really don't see this as a common use case, so I don't want to add > features to the API to handle them. At least, not in this version. Fair enough! Thanks for all of the hard work on this... it seems to have grown about 5 times in size from the original draft, which shows how much input has gone into it. J.Ja
Received on Thursday, 13 November 2008 04:29:47 UTC