On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Andrew Wilson <atwilson@google.com>wrote: > >> I am not optimistic that we can do deadlock prevention in the general >> case with MessagePorts, for the same reason that it's prohibitively >> difficult to reliably garbage collect MessagePorts when they can be passed >> between processes. >> > > Would you consider this an implementation-blocking problem? > No. To the contrary, I was (poorly) arguing in favor of not making deadlock prevention a required part of the spec.
Received on Monday, 3 September 2012 04:57:29 UTC