- From: João Eiras <joaoe@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 00:59:03 +0200
- To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "Olli Pettay" <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>, "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "Adam Barth" <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Cc: "WebApps WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>
> How is this different from making two mutations per mutation event, or > calling postMessage() twice for each invokation of the 'message' event, or > loading two new iframes every time an iframe's 'load' event fires? > > It's quite different because in those cases, the events or actions are all limited to one single runtime, which means all these actions are queued. A sane user agent can share a part of its cpu time between all the active runtimes, and keeping the other documents usable while one fork bombs itself with events, being the leftover problem the amount of memory needed. With storage events, the user agent must send events to unrelated runtimes, which can escalate immensely, therefore filling all the other runtimes' event queues with the superfluous events. If the user agent has no protection against this, then the user will be forced to close the whole browser, and not just the webpage that is misbehaving.
Received on Monday, 18 May 2009 22:59:56 UTC