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

Re: Future feedback

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 22:03:12 -0400
Message-ID: <51958FE0.6020905@mit.edu>
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 6:52 PM, Sean Hogan wrote:
> So what would be the problem if `setImmediate()` just appended to the
> futures task source?

None per se, except to the extent that you want to have different 
priority settings for setImmediate and futures or to the extent that you 
want some sort of ordering guarantees between setImmediate and something 
other than futures.

Basically, the point of task sources is to take things that should 
behave in a FIFO manner and group them together.  Tasks which should 
delay each other should go in a single task source, while tasks whose 
timing is unrelated should go in different task sources.

Received on Friday, 17 May 2013 02:03:45 UTC

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