- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 00:43:57 -0400
- To: Sean Hogan <shogun70@westnet.com.au>
- CC: David Bruant <bruant.d@gmail.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On 5/16/13 12:32 AM, Sean Hogan wrote:
> Future.accept()
> .then(function() {
> task1();
> task2();
> })
> .then(function() {
> task3();
> });
>
> Assuming a **best-case scenario**
Define "best-case"? What are the criteria?
As far as how it behaves in practice, I believe some current UAs could
do a reflow between task1 and task2 there, and in fact might do it while
task1 is running. Most current UAs would definitely not do anything
between task1 and task2, since those run sync right after another.
The question is what happens with then(), right? It seems to me that
either it has to yield to the general event loop (and allow reflow to
happen sometimes) or it needs to be subject to things like slow-script
dialogs. Given that as I understand the point of this setup is to
encapsulate fundamentally async computations, yielding to the event loop
makes the most sense to me...
Note that just because reflow _can_ happen between task2 and task3
doesn't mean it _will_. UAs do try to not reflow too often and all.
> 3. What is the timing interval between task2 and task3? Milliseconds is
> fine.
Seems like "milliseconds unless something else hogs the event loop"
should be trivial to achieve: you can get that right now with
setTimeout, which is not throttled for a bit, then throttles to 4ms.
-Boris
Received on Thursday, 16 May 2013 04:44:28 UTC