- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 22:29:23 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21962 --- Comment #6 from Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org> --- (In reply to comment #5) > So it seems to me that Lifecyle events are similar enough to mutation > observers that makes sense considering abstracting the mutation observer > delivery mechanism to essentially allow Lifecycle event callbacks to act as > observers. > > Imagine that HTML defines an abstract EOMT processing model like: > > -EOMTWorker > > static Vector<EOMTWorker> activeWorkers > > static activateWorker(EOMTWorker worker) { > if (!activeWorkers.contains(worker)) > activeWorkers.append(worker); > } > > static isDelivering = false; > > static processEOMTCheckpoint() { > if (isDelivering) > return; > isDelivering = true; > > while (!activeWorkers.empty()) { > deliverNow = activeWorkers.copy(); > activeWorkers.clear(); > forEach worker in deliverNow { > worker.invoke(); // may run script, which may activate other workers > // may also decide to do nothing if it no longer > needs to > } > } > > isDelivering = false; > } I agree. The spec already has sorting tables as a separate sequential step in microtask checkpoint, which means we could definitely end up with pending sorts when exiting the the checkpoint: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/webappapis.html#perform-a-microtask-checkpoint Should attempt to monkey-patch this in custom elements spec? That seems a bit crazy :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 22 May 2013 22:29:27 UTC