W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > October 2013

Re: [whatwg] Counterproposal for canvas in workers

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 18:26:14 +1300
Message-ID: <CAOp6jLaXmeU86LN5L3ukq8QHGPTik9+9T3LMm-4q31sjDes-UA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Cc: "whatwg@whatwg.org" <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:

> The tasks themselves can also launch synchronized/unsynchronized subtasks
> with promises. A task is considered "done" if it exits and all its promises
> are fulfilled.

It seems that tasks are like workers, but different, and you'd have to do a
lot of extra work to precisely define the execution environment of the task

It also seems that you have to precisely define how different tasks
interact. For example is the current path left in the canvas by task 1
usable by the code in task 2? You also have to define how this works in

I don't think this supports a worker/task generating a steady stream of
frames, e.g. for a 3D game. Does it?

I'm not all that enthusiastic :-)

Jtehsauts  tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy  Mdaon  yhoaus  eanuttehrotraiitny  eovni
le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o  Whhei csha iids  teoa
stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d  'mYaonu,r  "sGients  uapr,e  tfaokreg iyvoeunr,
'm aotr  atnod  sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t"  uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n?  gBoutt  uIp
waanndt  wyeonut  thoo mken.o w  *
Received on Thursday, 17 October 2013 05:26:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:12 UTC