- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 08:19:51 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16606 --- Comment #12 from Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@gmail.com> 2012-04-03 08:19:50 UTC --- (In reply to comment #11) > (In reply to comment #10) > > Inside MutationObserver? You mean MutationObserver's callback? > > Well, if there are new records, the callback would be called again, if not, > > nothing would happen. > > Right, and I don't think that's a desirable behavior (called again) because now > mutation observer callback can be called mutually recursively (with deliver()) > without starting an event loop. Why is that not desirable behavior? And what has mutation observer callback to do with event loop? > > i.e. I prefer takeMutations() over deliver(). takeMutations() or some such which just returns the current records and clears the record list is ok to me. I don't see much difference between takeMutations() and deliver(). -- Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2012 08:20:05 UTC