Re: Futures and transactions

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Anne van Kesteren <> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 2:07 AM, Jonas Sicking <> wrote:
>> So I guess the current solution is fine as longs as either
>> * No JS libraries will want to implement APIs that uses locks, or
>> * Such libraries are ok with not using the built-in Future API and
>> instead re-implementing the Future API themselves.
> The problem with exposing this directly is that you can also do bad stuff.

Nothing worst than you could do by implementing the Future API in JS yourself.

As far as I can tell the only problem is that by exposing sync
resolving, pages can do it more easily and so might be more tempted to
do it.

/ Jonas

Received on Monday, 15 April 2013 18:29:27 UTC