- From: Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan@mozilla.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 17:10:28 -0400
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: WHAT Working Group <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Gene Lian <clian@mozilla.com>
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan@mozilla.com> wrote: > It occurs to me that all of the proposals here does expose some amount >> of GC behavior. Even a "channeldropped" message which is sent only >> when the other side crashes exposes GC behavior. If GC happens to run >> before the crash and then collect the MessageChannel ports, then no >> channel exists at the time of crash, and thus no event is sent. >> However if the GC runs later, or if it doesn't successfully collect >> the MessageChannel ports, then the "channeldropped" event does fire. >> > > I'm not sure if I understand this. If the MessagePort exists on the side > that is interested to handle the event, then it can't be GCed on the other > side either, right? > Also, having a setTimeout(0) loop which polls the attribute would open us to the exact same risks as the event would, I think. -- Ehsan <http://ehsanakhgari.org/>
Received on Thursday, 17 October 2013 21:11:33 UTC