- From: Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 20:30:10 +0300
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, public-webapps@w3.org
On 07/20/2011 06:46 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >>> Hence I'm leaning towards using the almost-asynchronous proposal for >>> now. If we end up getting the feedback from people that use mutation >>> events today that they won't be able to solve the same use cases, then >>> we can consider using the synchronous notifications. However I think >>> that it would be beneficial to try to go almost-async for now. >> >> I disagree. > > I had hoped for a bit more of an explanation than that ;-) > > Such as why do you not think that synchronous events will be a problem > for web developers just like they have been for us? In practice synchronous events have been a problem to us because we are in C++, which is unsafe language. Web devs use JS. Web devs usually want something synchronous, like sync XHR (sync XHR has other problems not related to mutation handling). Synchronous is easier to understand. -Olli > > / Jonas > >
Received on Wednesday, 20 July 2011 17:30:49 UTC