Re: Blocking message passing for Workers

David Bruant wrote:
> That's not what I had understood. So both types of APIs (sync and 
> async) will be available to workers for say, IndexedDB?
> If that's the case, I have no problem with it and we can stop the 
> discussion.
> What I remembered of the state of the consensus was that given sync 
> APIs were considered needed in workers, they would be added to workers 
> without the async counterpart (since that would duplicate the API 
> surface).

Sorry I missed this -- do you have a link to the thread?

>> If I understand you, you're arguing for everyone manually inverting 
>> control flow, because that maximizes code re-use.
> That's what everyone is already used to doing already (not because of 
> code reuse, but because that's how JS APIs are designed).

This is a circular argument. We have a choice for workers to do 
something different (and in addition, not instead-of).


Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2014 18:51:57 UTC