- From: Takeshi Yoshino <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2017 23:19:58 -0800
- To: whatwg/streams <streams@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Received on Thursday, 9 March 2017 07:20:29 UTC
tyoshino commented on this pull request. > @@ -2681,24 +2694,24 @@ WritableStream(<var>underlyingSink</var> = {}, { <var>size</var>, <var>highWater </div> <div class="note"> - Due to the way writable streams asynchronously close, it is possible for both <code>close</code> and - <code>abort</code> to be called, in cases where the <a>producer</a> aborts the stream while it is in the - <code>"closing"</code> state. Notably, since a stream always spends at least one turn in the <code>"closing"</code> - state, code like <code>ws.close(); ws.abort(...);</code> will cause both to be called, even if the <code>close</code> - method itself has no asynchronous behavior. A well-designed <a>underlying sink</a> object should be able to deal with - this. + The \[[inFlightCloseRequest]] slot and \[[closeRequest]] slot are mutually exclusive. No element will be removed from + \[[writeRequests]] while \[[inFlightWriteRequest]] is not <code>undefined</code>. Implementations may optimize the way + to hold these slots based on these assumptions. Done! Thanks -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/whatwg/streams/pull/672#discussion_r105099609
Received on Thursday, 9 March 2017 07:20:29 UTC