- From: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 04:13:51 +0000
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Adam Klein <adamk@google.com>
- CC: Joshua Bell <jsbell@google.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>, Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@google.com>
[+Yehuda, +Raf] From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jonas@sicking.cc] > On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Adam Klein <adamk@google.com> wrote: >> While I agree that the original microtask intent would suggest we >> change this, and I concur that it seems unlikely to break content, I >> worry about the spec and implementation complexity that would be >> incurred by having to support the notion of "at the end of the current >> microtask". It suggests one >> of: >> >> 1. A new task queue, which runs after microtasks (nanotasks?) 2. The >> ability to put tasks at the start of the microtask queue rather than >> at the end > > I was just thinking to hardcode this into the algorithm that's run at the end of the microtask. Note that closing the transaction never runs code, which means that very little implementation complexity is needed. > I definitely agree that both of the above options are pretty unattractive. This recalls Yehuda's proposal for a "bucketed" microtask queue. It seems like this is a very strong argument for it.
Received on Thursday, 19 June 2014 04:14:27 UTC