W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: Move sync APIs out of "Worker" into "SyncWorker"

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 11:01:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei9C9BXxduqpR9BFAb88t3=3PdX3Hm9BvBbf4PxhQ5BeeA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Cc: Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>, public-script-coord <public-script-coord@w3.org>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Would it makes sense to do one of the following?:
>> * Expose the sync methods on DedicatedWorker only - this would require usage
>> stats of sync methods in SharedWorkers to be insignificant
>> * Expose the sync methods on a new global SyncWorker, where
>> DedicatedWorkerGlobalScope would be
>> [Global=Worker,SyncWorker,DedicatedWorker], SharedWorkerGlobalScope would be
>> [Global=Worker,SyncWorker,SharedWorker]
> I like the first option if we can make it fly. Jonas probably has
> concerns. Ian will need to update HTML for the second option to work.

Mozilla would be fine with the first option. I even emailed this list
about this before we started shipping SharedWorker. However Blink (who
at the time had the only implementation of SharedWorker) showed no
interest in removing sync APIs from SharedWorker and so we ended up
shipping sync APIs in shared workers.

If Google+Opera shows interest in removing sync APIs from SharedWorker
in Blink, in the form of actual patches, then I believe that Mozilla
would follow.

/ Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2014 18:02:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:22 UTC