Re: Mutation events replacement

On 22/07/11 02:26, Adam Klein wrote:
> This is only complex because you're coalescing the mutations, right?
> In Rafael's original proposal, each mutation would result in a single
> immutable mutation record, so the semantics would be to "deliver" (by
> appending to a queue associated with each observer) a mutation record
> to any currently-registered observers.
> Or is there some other concern with beginning notifications partway
> through a task?

I would suggest avoiding coalescing mutations altogether!

But if you are going to, *don't* coalesce mutations when the resulting 
DOM tree is dependent on the order in which those mutations took place.  
This is critical to distributed editing applications.

  Dave Raggett<>

Received on Friday, 22 July 2011 09:08:42 UTC