Re: web Worker API suggestion

Hi Reilly.

Thanks for sharing. Really useful. I like that Block concept that's
mentioned there!
Happy I'm not alone :D



On Tue, 15 May 2018 at 21:17 Reilly Grant <reillyg@chromium.org> wrote:

> At BlinkOn 9 there was discussion of how ergonomics of the Worker API
> could be improved in ways similar to what you suggest. Video of that
> session is here
> <https://drive.google.com/file/d/18V0baK57sAUFtD6uO9neLtZY8pR-Fzvn/view>.
> Reilly Grant | Software Engineer | reillyg@chromium.org | Google Chrome
> <https://www.google.com/chrome>
>
>
> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:21 AM Andre Venancio <info@andrevenancio.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Patrick.
>> Been having a look at that option too, however a linter wouldnt easily
>> parse that in order to validate my javascript.. I do understand your point,
>> however makes me feel dirty having to include a task for copying static
>> file around from my SRC to my DIST folders. would be easier if there was a
>> way of accessing another memory thread without having to handle this
>> external file requirement.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 13 May 2018 at 21:07 Patrick Kettner <
>> Patrick.Kettner@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey Andre!
>>> The issue with this is that it would not be obvious that you are unable
>>> to pass objects from the current scope into the worker (which would break
>>> the entire purpose of having a fast codepath in another thread). You
>>> *can* construct one from a string, however. You just need to wrap it up
>>> like a file
>>> <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10343913/how-to-create-a-web-worker-from-a-string>
>>>
>>> cheers
>>>
>>> patrick
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *From:* Andre Venancio <info@andrevenancio.com>
>>> *Sent:* Friday, May 11, 2018 9:25 AM
>>> *To:* public-webapps@w3.org
>>> *Subject:* web Worker API suggestion
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> Not sure this is the best email to contact you guys regarding an API
>>> suggestion, but here it goes:
>>>
>>>
>>> I've been thinking about this for a while now, and I think it would be
>>> beneficial to update the Worker api to allow you to pass a IIFI function
>>> instead of a external file?
>>>
>>> From: current Worker API:
>>>
>>> const worker = new Worker('lame.js');
>>> worker.onmessage = (e) => {
>>> console.log(e);
>>> };
>>>
>>> // lame.js
>>> this.addEventListener('message', (e) => {
>>> this.postMessage({ message: 'hello back' });
>>> });
>>>
>>>
>>> to
>>>
>>> const worker = new Worker(() => {
>>> this.addEventListener('message', (e) => {
>>> this.postMessage({ message: 'hello back' });
>>> });
>>> });
>>> worker.onmessage = (e) => {
>>> console.log(e);
>>> };
>>>
>>>
>>> Wouldn't this be better?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Andre
>>>
>>