- From: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 10:08:09 +0100
- To: Adam Klein <adamk@chromium.org>
- CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, public-webapps@w3.org
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<dsr@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett
Received on Friday, 22 July 2011 09:08:42 UTC