Re: Extending Mutation Observers to address use cases of

> On Feb 11, 2014, at 6:06 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <> wrote:
> * Olli Pettay wrote:
>> We could add some scheduling thing to mutation observers. By default 
>> we'd use microtask, since that tends to be good for various performance 
>> reasons, but normal tasks or nanotasks could be possible too.

Right, we need some sort of a switch.  I'm not certain if we want to add it as a per-observation option or a global switch when we create an observer. My guy feeling is that we want the latter.  It would be weird for some mutation records to be delivered earlier than others to the same observer.

I'd like to know exact semantics requirements before start jumping into details though.

> This sounds like adding a switch that would dynamically invalidate
> assumptions mutation observers might make, which sounds like a bad idea. Could you elaborate?

I don't really follow what the problem is. Could you elaborate on what you see as a problem?

- R. Niwa

Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2014 02:27:53 UTC