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

Re: Future feedback

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 23:51:59 -0400
Message-ID: <5191B4DF.2010003@mit.edu>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: Sean Hogan <shogun70@westnet.com.au>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On 5/12/13 11:37 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
>>> 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?
> Work that is performed at end-of-microtask is sort of between fully
> asynchronous and normal synchronous.

Wait.  Are we talking about adding more things to the end-of-microtask 
checkpoint list, or about adding a way to directly post unthrottled 
tasks to the event loop?

I'm actually a lot more ok with adding end-of-microtask stuff, not least 
because that will, I believe, trigger slow script dialogs and other user 
countermeasures if it takes too long.

> But it also means that you are missing out of some of the advantages
> of asynchronous code, such as you still have to worry about hogging
> the event loop for too long and thus not processing pending UI events
> from the user.


Received on Tuesday, 14 May 2013 03:52:36 UTC

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