W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: Future feedback

From: Sean Hogan <shogun70@westnet.com.au>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 13:27:46 +1000
Message-ID: <5191AF32.4050600@westnet.com.au>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
CC: public-script-coord@w3.org
On 13/05/13 12:31 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 5/12/13 8:38 PM, Sean Hogan wrote:
>> If I setTimeout a task, which itself setTimeout's a task, which
>> setTimeout's a task, etc, etc
>> then each task is delayed by, say 4, 8, 12, 16 msec.
> Yes, I did have the caveat about this.
>> Moreover the page can be reflowed between tasks.
> _ANY_ async solution will have this property.  What does it even mean 
> to be async if you don't allow reflows in the meantime?

Jonas addressed this. Maybe I should have left "asynchronous" out and 
referred to the Futures spec - http://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#futures - for 
'queue a task'.

>> why not expose it to the scripting environment?
> IE already does, as setImmediate.  It may be worth looking at the 
> existing reasons people have given for not implementing that...
> But yes, the answer may end up being that setImmediate gets 
> implemented, in spite of the (well-founded, imo) concerns about abuse.

Surely DOM Future could be abused worse than setImmediate?

Received on Tuesday, 14 May 2013 03:28:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:13 UTC