Re: About onaddtrack/onremovetrack

On 2015-05-26 14:22, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> Den 26. mai 2015 14:02, skrev Adam Bergkvist:
>> On 2015-05-22 22:49, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote:
>>> On 5/21/15 10:28 AM, Iņaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>>>> 2015-05-20 20:19 GMT+02:00 Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>:
>>>>> Events are synchronous, so when they happen in a synchronous call, should it
>>>>> not happen before the call returns?
>>>> I don't think that events should be synchronous. They may be called in
>>>> future loop iterations after the function returns.
>>
>> This is pretty much the issue. What is requested in this thread is an
>> async event similar to the one fired when the UA adds a track to a
>> MediaStream as a result of, for example, a network request.
>>
>>>
>>> I vote for least suprising, and think we should be consistent with the
>>> rest of the web platform, unless we have a good reason.
>>
>> I totally agree that we should be consistent with the web platform here,
>> but I'm not sure what that is. To be honest, the synchronous event
>> dispatch behavior of the focus event kind of surprised me.
>
> Events (the basic primitive) are defined as synchronous.
>
> Things that happen in the Web platform that are described as "Schedule a
> task to fire an event...." effectively create asynchronous events. There
> are a LOT of such descriptions.
>
> I too was surprised when I read the spec and found that "fire an event"
> means "call the handler functions for this event", not "cause this to
> happen in the future".
> I tend to think of synchronous callbacks as a spec bug, not a feature.

Just to clarify, what surprised me with the focus event is that it's not 
fired in a scheduled task.

/Adam

Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2015 12:33:38 UTC