[whatwg] Script loading and execution order for importScripts

Just to clarify, if two scripts fail to load or compile then Mozilla
always throws the error encountered by the first of the failed
scripts. So, if I have a worker that does this:

  importScripts("1.js", "2.js", "3.js");

and "1.js" fails to load and "3.js" fails to compile then we report
the failed load of "1.js". There is no race here.

-Ben

On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 9:04 PM, Oliver Hunt <oliver at apple.com> wrote:
>
> Why do you think it's important not to have side effects for syntax
> errors but don't think it's important to not have side effects for
> run-time errors? Given that we simply can't fix the latter, I don't
> see any advantage to users to attempt to fix the former.
>
> I really don't think optimizing for the case when something has gone
> wrong is the way to go. That is an extremely rare case in a deployed
> application, and so optimizing for performance feels much more
> important to users.
>
> Also considering how applications are likely to handle these errors,
> I.e. full abort and tell user that an unrecoverable error has
> occurred, it doesn't really matter if there have been side effects or
> not.
>
> The primary situation i'm imagining could happen is one script starts
> manipulating a client side database onload (maybe ?a?conscious?decision to
> do db work while waiting for io), then the next script fails to load due to
> (say) a network failure, then your left with side effects they may not be
> reasonably recoverable. ?Arguably this design should be considered flawed
> anyway, but people tend to test under ideal conditions more often than not.
> ?The counter argument is that protecting developers from their own
> foolishness is not a goal.
>
> / Jonas
>
> --Oliver

Received on Saturday, 7 March 2009 23:22:16 UTC