- From: Brendan Eich <brendan@secure.meer.net>
- Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 12:25:52 -0700
- 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>, Alon Zakai <azakai@mozilla.com>
David Bruant wrote: > I proposed exposing both here > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013OctDec/0164.html > Jonas Sicking wasn't sold > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013OctDec/0165.html You didn't reply, but we now have a good argument thanks to your point here, about reusing async-only JS libraries. > And I haven't found later replies on this topic. Alon replied to Jonas, saying somewhat more gently what I said about generators/async-functions/whole-program-CPS-conversion being infeasible for Emscripten: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013OctDec/0175.html Jonas's desire for parsimony is a good design bias, but we now have a reason to consider async as well as sync APIs for workers. However, I'd still want some case analysis. Do we see Emscripten using IndexedDB to emulate a synchronous filesystem? If we have a sync f/s API that's closer to Unix/C, perhaps there's no Emscripten-based need. Cc'ing Alon, assuming Jonas will catch up on the list. /be
Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2014 19:26:23 UTC