W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > November 2008

[whatwg] Workers and queue of events

From: Dmitry Titov <dimich@chromium.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:09:33 -0800
Message-ID: <28040fc60811182209w47455987o6963cfd943646952@mail.gmail.com>
Ok, it makes sense for OOM to treat it as other OOM cases.
If I may ask your opinion about related thing: SharedWorkers potentially
would run cross-process. IPC can stop/stuck for many reasons, taret process
can die in the midflight (killed by the user from TaskManager for example).
I guess in this case Worker.postMessage() could still just return as if
everything is ok, but nothing would happen. Is it the right behavior?


On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert at ocallahan.org>wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Dmitry Titov <dimich at chromium.org> wrote:
>
>> It does seem like OOM indeed but it may be different because with multiple
>> threads it's much easier to get into effects like this, you don't need to
>> allocate a lot of objects.
>
>
> You're not allocating JS objects but you are allocating event objects
> internally, and everything's going to work fine until you actually do hit
> OOM. So I think you should treat it like any other OOM and it should not be
> exposed to the Web author in any special way.
>
>
> Rob
> --
> "He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
> the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
> healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
> own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah
> 53:5-6]
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20081118/2104b877/attachment.htm>
Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2008 22:09:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:07 UTC