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

[whatwg] workers

From: Aaron Boodman <aa@google.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:11:15 -0700
Message-ID: <278fd46c0809301011t71a89ef0s6a290434b87c0a54@mail.gmail.com>
2008/9/30 Alexey Proskuryakov <ap at webkit.org>:
> Hmm... So this is more about how you use the interface, not what the object
> behind it is. If one chooses to never call close() on a shared worker (or,
> say, sets myWorker.close to null right after invoking constructor), it
> becomes indistinguishable from a dedicated worker.
>
> Hiding close() possibly sounds more like something a high-level framework
> may want to do to enforce a certain design pattern than a core feature.

I could see that too. When all the parties accessing a shared worker
are from the same origin (as they are today) it is less of an issue.
You can probably assume that they know not to close() the worker.

Do you have any thoughts on the extra API on dedicated workers
proposed by Jonas (DedicatedWorker::sendMessage,
DedicatedWorkerGlobalScope::onmessage)?

- a
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2008 10:11:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:05 UTC