- From: Mike Wilson <mikewse@hotmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:04:11 +0200
Blocking I/O on the main thread is ok if it's possible to specify a timeout for the I/O operation, see: http://www.openajax.org/runtime/wiki/Synchronous_XHR_Enhancements and if the UA'a user interface is kept responsive (running animated GIFs, repainting UI etc) and allows the user to abort the blocking operation (f ex as a new use of the Stop button), see: http://www.openajax.org/runtime/wiki/Browser_Unresponsive_Mode_Enhancements Best regards Mike Wilson > -----Original Message----- > From: whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org > [mailto:whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org] On Behalf Of Brady Eidson > Sent: den 7 juli 2008 22:50 > To: Mike Ter Louw > Cc: whatwg; Ian Hickson > Subject: Re: [whatwg] Web Sockets > > On Jul 7, 2008, at 12:57 PM, Mike Ter Louw wrote: > > Joking aside, should a blocking read/recv call be made available? > > In some cases additional lag may be an acceptable compromise for > > maintaining the JavaScript call stack until a response arrives. > > My personal take (and the take of most of the people I work with) is > that blocking i/o on the main thread should be out of the question. > > No matter what assumptions, guarantees, or compromises are > understood > in a rationalization for allowing it, we've seen time and time again > that they backfire and lead to poor user experiences and bad > performance problems. > > Notice I'm explicitly mentioning the main thread - if we get > a clear, > clean spec for worker threads and we restrict blocking i/o to such > worker threads, then sure - go for it! > > ~Brady > >
Received on Friday, 11 July 2008 12:04:11 UTC