- From: Aaron Boodman <aa@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:13:02 -0700
On Sep 20, 2007 1:22 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs at apple.com> wrote: > FWIW the async model would probably be easier to implement in the > short run than worker threads, and we'd be hesitant to implement > worker threads at all without a clear spec for which APIs should be > available on worker threads. But in the long run I think having both > is reasonable. Agree. That said, it will be even more common with databases to have multiple asynchronous operations in a row than it is today with XHR. Doing this all asynchronously will be incredibly painful. I have done some thought on how to simplify the worker api, and I think it could be as easy as: var w = createWorker("foo.js"); w.sendMessage("messageName", jsonStyleObject); w.addEventListener("messageName", function(e) { // e.args is a jsonStyleObject that was sent from the worker. }, false); Inside the worker: worker.addEventListener("messageName", function(e) { // e.args is a jsonStyleObject that was sent from the worker. }, false); w.sendMessage("messageName", jsonStyleObject); The main complication then will just be adding back access to the APIs you need: XHR, database, cookies, timers, onerror, etc. - a -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20070920/9333da85/attachment.htm>
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2007 10:13:02 UTC