W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: Blocking message passing for Workers

From: Brendan Eich <brendan@secure.meer.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 17:11:14 -0700
Message-ID: <53E95BA2.2070300@secure.meer.net>
To: David Bruant <bruant.d@gmail.com>
CC: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, adelespinasse@gmail.com, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
David Bruant wrote:
> Le 09/08/2014 16:22, Brian Kardell a écrit :
>>
>> On Aug 9, 2014 10:16 AM, "David Bruant" <bruant.d@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:bruant.d@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > There is still a case for blocking primitives for projects that 
>> compile from other languages (C, C++, Python, Java, C#, etc.) to JS [3].
>> >
>>
>> I'm glad to be switching last night's twitter discussion to a bigger 
>> medium.  My question here is: what is the proposal (if there is any) 
>> to balance these and simultaneously ensure that we don't wind up 
>> limiting ourselves or providing really bad foot guns or two APIs 
>> depending on whether you're in the main thread or a worker?
>>
> There isn't such proposal and I don't think that can exist which is 
> one reason I'm opposed to the introduction of blocking primitives in 
> workers.
>
> I really hope the compile-to-JS use cases will find another way to be 
> solved.

There is no other way.

Why are you arguing from dogma instead of reason? There's no *reason* to 
say worker overhead is so expensive we should not allow authors to 
create more workers as needed when some block (temporarily, let's hope 
on non-main-thread sync input operations?

/be
Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2014 00:11:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:26 UTC