Re: Mutation events replacement

On 6/30/11 1:45 PM, James Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 1:15 PM, David Flanagan < 
> <>> wrote:
>         This is actually a pretty hard problem to solve, and still
>         wouldn't really solve the performance issues for DOM events....
>     Still better than current DOM Mutation event, though right?  Are
>     you saying that synchronous callbacks on a readonly tree would
>     have worse performance than Jonas's and Olli's proposal?
> I suspect, although I have not measured, than entering/leaving the JS 
> vm every time an attribute was modified or a node was creating would 
> have significantly higher overhead than batching up the calls to 
> happen later.  Consider generating a large amount of DOM by setting 
> innerHTML.
> - James
So what if the calls were batched up and invoked synchronously before 
the operation returns, as in Olli's proposal, but in addition, the 
document was made re-only while the callbacks were running?  I don't 
want to argue strongly for it, but it does seem like a huge 
simplification if it wouldn't break important use cases.


Received on Thursday, 30 June 2011 22:29:41 UTC