- From: Alexey Proskuryakov <ap@webkit.org>
- Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 16:42:34 +0300
Nov 4, 2008, ? 10:08 AM, Aaron Boodman ???????(?):
> This lack of generality bothers me on an aesthetic level, but I also
> think it has the following real problems:
Agreed on all points.
> * Add startConversation() to SharedWorker, but rename it "connect()"
Makes sense - when we had other MessagePort methods mirrored to worker
global scope, this name was natural, but it no longer is now.
> Here's an example in code:
>
> // dedicated workers (outside)
> var worker = new Worker("foo.js");
> var port = worker.connect();
> port.onmessage = function() { }
> port.postMessage("ping");
>
> // dedicated workers (inside)
> onconnect = function(e) {
> e.port.onmessage = function(e) {
> e.port.postMessage("pong");
> }
> }
I think this can be written as (note the different name of
MessageEvent attribute, and the use of "this" in onmessage):
onconnect = function(e) {
e.messagePort.onmessage = function() {
this.postMessage("pong");
}
}
In general, one extra line of code doesn't look like a huge downside -
this is not something that needs to be done again and again in client
code.
> Shared workers are exactly the same except the constructor is
> SharedWorker("foo.js", "foo");
Is there any benefit in having a different name for this constructor?
If dedicated and shared workers are going to have identical
implementation (notably, if they have exactly the same lifetime), I
don't see any benefit in making them look different.
- WBR, Alexey Proskuryakov
Received on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 05:42:34 UTC