- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 00:41:24 -0400
- To: James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>
- CC: Chris Rogers <crogers@google.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Geoffrey Garen <ggaren@apple.com>, Darin Fisher <darin@chromium.org>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Eric Uhrhane <ericu@google.com>, michaeln@google.com, Alexey Proskuryakov <ap@webkit.org>, Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>, jorlow@google.com
On 10/29/10 12:15 AM, James Robinson wrote: > Are we talking about ArrayBuffer here or Blob? The former. > It's never acceptable to block javascript on a synchronous disk access Why? Other questions to consider: 1) Why is it ok to block it on a synchronous disk access due to being paged in but not to block on a synchronous disk access due to reading a file descriptor? Or is the former not acceptable too? 2) Why is it ok to block on a synchronous disk access due to being paged in but not to block on a synchronous disk access due to having the backing store for your mmap moved from disk to RAM? Or is the latter acceptable? But if we posit this, how author-hostile would an API that provides asynchronous access to the byte buffer, with a callback when it's available, be? Would you be willing to implement that in Chrome? -Boris
Received on Friday, 29 October 2010 04:42:00 UTC